5 ms·

I love orgmode, but what's the advantage over asciidoc? asciidoc looks cleaner to me the other small disadvantage is that text isn't really bound to headers. S

by geokon 9y ago

I love orgmode, but what's the advantage over asciidoc? asciidoc looks cleaner to me the other small disadvantage is that text isn't really bound to headers. So headers and text just kinda float around meaninglessly. So you can't have: * Header topic1 introductory text * * Subheader some descriptive text related to the subheader more text to wrap up topic1

GordonS 9y ago
I'm a big fan of asciidoc - I started using it for all my technical documentation a few years ago and haven't looked back. It gets the balance between simplicity and features just right.
Moyamo 9y ago
> what's the advantage over asciidoc? Exactly what is states in the article. Asciidoc has 3 different types of headings (prefix, pre-postfix and underlined). http://example.com[Text] The form is simple but for complex URLs, the [Text] might look like being part of the URL itself. Not beautiful but at least something I could live with. Additionally asciidoc uses ===== for underlining headings and for delineating code blocks. the other small disadvantage is that text isn't really bound to headers Surely this is true of all markup languages. How you would represent this visually in a document?
- throwawayknecht 9y ago
  > Surely this is true of all markup languages. How you would represent this visually in a document? An extra newline between the end of the inner part and the return to the outer part, which is what I do naturally. This can get unwieldy for breaking out of more than one level, but that's rare enough you can handle that with an alternative syntax like "--" alone to break out of two levels, "---" to break out of 3, etc. Another possibility would be picking up ASCII SI/SO again. (Emacs already makes extensive use of FF.)
- geokon 9y ago
  "Surely this is true of all markup languages. How you would represent this visually in a document?" Not to be snarky, but the ML in XML and HTML stands for markup language.. I'd like my markup to be easy to read and also to map to a tree hierarchy. This seems essential for parsing and anything related to literate programming and reusing "blocks" Like when I drop in a org mode clock (for logging time in my work logbook), without a tree hierarchy I have no means of binding the time to my description of the work I did. I mean... I see in visually, but its not programmatically linked as an attribute of that text block. You can kinda get around with pepperin headers everywhere, but it's not as flexible
shoover 9y ago
On Windows, not having to install DocBook tools.

by geokon 9y ago

GordonS 9y ago

I'm a big fan of asciidoc - I started using it for all my technical documentation a few years ago and haven't looked back. It gets the balance between simplicity and features just right.

Moyamo 9y ago

> what's the advantage over asciidoc? Exactly what is states in the article. Asciidoc has 3 different types of headings (prefix, pre-postfix and underlined). http://example.com[Text] The form is simple but for complex URLs, the [Text] might look like being part of the URL itself. Not beautiful but at least something I could live with. Additionally asciidoc uses ===== for underlining headings and for delineating code blocks. the other small disadvantage is that text isn't really bound to headers Surely this is true of all markup languages. How you would represent this visually in a document?

throwawayknecht 9y ago
> Surely this is true of all markup languages. How you would represent this visually in a document? An extra newline between the end of the inner part and the return to the outer part, which is what I do naturally. This can get unwieldy for breaking out of more than one level, but that's rare enough you can handle that with an alternative syntax like "--" alone to break out of two levels, "---" to break out of 3, etc. Another possibility would be picking up ASCII SI/SO again. (Emacs already makes extensive use of FF.)
geokon 9y ago
"Surely this is true of all markup languages. How you would represent this visually in a document?" Not to be snarky, but the ML in XML and HTML stands for markup language.. I'd like my markup to be easy to read and also to map to a tree hierarchy. This seems essential for parsing and anything related to literate programming and reusing "blocks" Like when I drop in a org mode clock (for logging time in my work logbook), without a tree hierarchy I have no means of binding the time to my description of the work I did. I mean... I see in visually, but its not programmatically linked as an attribute of that text block. You can kinda get around with pepperin headers everywhere, but it's not as flexible

shoover 9y ago

On Windows, not having to install DocBook tools.