3 ms·

> Sometimes it seems, that there is some kind of animosity towards any non-markdown format Can't speak for anyone else, but for my part there is animosity towa

by a1369209993 5y ago

> Sometimes it seems, that there is some kind of animosity towards any non-markdown format Can't speak for anyone else, but for my part there is animosity towards any format, period. Documentation should be plain ASCII - or, when strictly necessary[0], UTF-8 - text, and readable as such with only human-generated ad hod syntax such as *emphasis* or +------------------+ | ascii-art tables | +---+--------------+ | + | corner | | | | side of cell | | - | bottom/top | +---+--------------+ or http://links.to/whereever.written-literally http://links.to/whereever.written-literally. To the extent that markdown is tolerable, it's because it does not demand any obfuscation in how documentation is written. Admittedly, I'm not necessarily a repesentative example of anything.

forgotmypw17 5y ago
I agree wholeheartedly. The most annoying thing about Markdown is that most of the time (90%, I'd say) it's added some kind of formatting, I was not trying to format anything at all.
a1369209993 5y ago
> when strictly necessary[0] Missed this and too late to edit. 0: Which historically meant "not stupid-quotes", with a addendum for stupid-dashes, stupid-ellipses, etc, but now also includes "not emoji".
zelphirkalt 5y ago
That is an interesting approach as well. What I see as advantages are: that there is no need for a specification and no need for it to be rendered, as one is to view it as plain text. What I see as disadvantages are: It is not possible to render it properly or have support for it beyond showing plain text. Many users might write things different from each other, which might affect how easily a reader picks up what each document's style or conventions are.
- a1369209993 5y ago
  > It is not possible to render it properly or have support for it beyond showing plain text. Sure you can, and indeed that's what markdown was originally supposed to do (at least as it was first described to me). The catch is that you have to treat the plain text as the authoritative version: you do not edit the plain text in order to produce changes in the rendered document; you edit the plain text for it's own sake, without considering the effect on the rendered version, and the rendered version is derived from that.

forgotmypw17 5y ago

I agree wholeheartedly. The most annoying thing about Markdown is that most of the time (90%, I'd say) it's added some kind of formatting, I was not trying to format anything at all.

a1369209993 5y ago

> when strictly necessary[0] Missed this and too late to edit. 0: Which historically meant "not stupid-quotes", with a addendum for stupid-dashes, stupid-ellipses, etc, but now also includes "not emoji".

zelphirkalt 5y ago

That is an interesting approach as well. What I see as advantages are: that there is no need for a specification and no need for it to be rendered, as one is to view it as plain text. What I see as disadvantages are: It is not possible to render it properly or have support for it beyond showing plain text. Many users might write things different from each other, which might affect how easily a reader picks up what each document's style or conventions are.

a1369209993 5y ago
> It is not possible to render it properly or have support for it beyond showing plain text. Sure you can, and indeed that's what markdown was originally supposed to do (at least as it was first described to me). The catch is that you have to treat the plain text as the authoritative version: you do not edit the plain text in order to produce changes in the rendered document; you edit the plain text for it's own sake, without considering the effect on the rendered version, and the rendered version is derived from that.