4 ms·
I recently discovered I can write great looking browser-ready documentation easily by simply embedding the whole page in a single PRE-tag and embedding a very s
by galaxyLogic 6y ago
I recently discovered I can write great looking browser-ready documentation easily by simply embedding the whole page in a single PRE-tag and embedding a very simple style-sheet:
<style>
pre
{ font-family: Verdana;
}
</style>
The reason it took me this long to not use HTML for writing simple texts I think is that the DEFAULT font for PRE in browsers looks terrible.
Whatever else I need are simple tags like <b> <h2>, <h3>, <hr> and simple hyperlinks. I can omit <html> and <head> and <body> tags totally it seems. No problem not having them. Just nice simple MINIMAL MARKUP content-pages.
But I can easily use the full power of HTML when needed. No need to rely on non-standard markdown dialects.
Is there a specific advantage of Markdown I am missing?
- asutekku 6y agoThe advantage is not having to write full html tags for example for lists (<ul><li>hi<li><ul>), when you can just use a single - to do the same thing and the text will also look readable on both pure text and as formatted.
- galaxyLogic 6y agoI can see it helps with lists. And maybe with tables? I don't know if the following is valid HTML but it shows 3 list-items perfectly in my browser: <li> one <li> two <li> three There are pros and cons. I don't mind having to type a few html-tags here and there when most of my content is just plain paragraphs anyway. I can keep a list of HTML snippets handy I need daily, and copy and paste them into my text.
- DocTomoe 6y agoYou are proposing the use of malformed HTML, which often leads to weird, and hilarious problems further down the road.
- galaxyLogic 6y agoYet, isn't all markdown more or less "malformed", as long as there is no real standard for the syntax? It can lead to weird and hilarious problems further down the road when a new or different Markdown translator is used somewhere else. :-)
- asutekku 6y agoHow is markdown malformed? Everything is either between characters or on a different row. Malformed markdown simply looks wrong.
- galaxyLogic 6y agoBy "malformed" I mean "not syntactically valid". And how could you be syntactically valid if there is no official syntax specification? Now let's assume there is such a thing as "Official Specification of Markdown -syntax". That would be great. But we know that there are many different markdown variants, so the markdown I write is most likely syntactically invalid, or "more or less malformed" according to at least some of the variants. More or less.
- asutekku 6y agoThe only difference among different markdown interpreters is that some support more features than others. **something** is going to be bold on all of them.
- DocTomoe 6y agoWhich doesn't really compare, given that differently from Markdown, HTML is, in fact, standardized.
- asutekku 6y ago- one <li> one The first one still more readable. The advantage of markdown is that it’s readable both formatted and unformatted.
- qbasic_forever 6y agoThrow a CSS style tag in there pointing to a simple, semantic HTML & CSS library and you'd be amazed how slick and polished your page appears--try dropping in MVP.css for example: https://andybrewer.github.io/mvp/ https://andybrewer.github.io/mvp/
- galaxyLogic 6y agoThanks for the link
- DocTomoe 6y agoBe aware that directly linking to external resources without user confirmation can be considered a GDPR violation.
- galaxyLogic 6y agoDoes that include scripts? Does it mean I can't include a JavaScript -script stored outside the html-page without user confirmation?
- DocTomoe 6y agoWhen you include an outside (=on a server not controlled by you) source, that outside source now gets the IP address - which is considered personal identifiable data in the EU context - a timestamp, and a referrer. This allows Google to track users over different sites that use, for example, google-hosted webfonts. Strictly speaking, you must not. That doesn't apply to a-links, because using those implies users made an active decision to load that resource, and thus consent. We've stopped using outside resources for that exact matter. In many european websites today, you see extra steps being necessary before other external ressources (which includes embedded Youtube videos) are loaded - for an example of that, see https://www.heise.de/make/meldung/Wenn-die-Band-bastelt-Murmel-Musik-Maschine-mit-2000-Kugeln-3125795.html https://www.heise.de/make/meldung/Wenn-die-Band-bastelt-Murm... We host locally on our own servers. It's one of those typical "tragedy of the commons" situation in which one bad actor kills a good thing (in this case: caching).