3 ms·
I find the opposite. I almost never use Markdown unless forced to. I find it much easier to remember <a href="https://foo.com"><img src="foo.jpg" width="3
by dheera 6y ago
I find the opposite. I almost never use Markdown unless forced to.
I find it much easier to remember
<a href="https://foo.com"><img src="foo.jpg" width="300" alt="foo"></a>
that some
[foo(foo.jpg)]
or is it
(http://foo.com)[(foo.jpg)(alt=alt text)]
or is it
[foo.com(foo.jpg) width=300]
or is it
(foo.com)[foo.jpg](alt text)[::width="300"]
...? I can never remember the goddamn inconsistent syntax.
and is it 2 asterisks for bold, 1 for italic, or 1 and 2, or is it 2 and 3? With html it's
<b>this is bold</b> <i>this is italic</i>
<b><i>this is bold and italic</i></b>
Much easier to remember.
- masswerk 6y agoSame here.
- TedDoesntTalk 6y agoSame problem for me. these syntaxes now suffer the same problem that forum software went through... each has their own syntax and they are not usually compatible. HTML, for better or worse, is the syntax we all know by heart and is universal.
- yoz-y 6y agoI’ve never seen a markdown flavour with anything other than 1 for italic and 2 for bold. Emphasis and strong emphasis respectively. I agree that the link to image syntax is easier to remember in html. That said, since markdown supports inline html you can always use that.
- JdeBP 6y agoGo and use MediaWiki markup, then you won't be able to make that assertion any more. (-:
- dheera 6y agoHard to remember. <b> and <i> are easier to remember than 1 and 2 (or is it 2 and 1) and now I have to figure out how to escape a damn asterisk, and how to do bold italic. Too much stuff to figure out. HTML is easier.