4 ms·
While Obsidian may be proprietary, as long as the files follow standard markdown syntax, it can be opened in any markdown editor. I am currently using both Obsi
by nonamechicken 5y ago
While Obsidian may be proprietary, as long as the files follow standard markdown syntax, it can be opened in any markdown editor. I am currently using both Obsidian & Typora on the same workspace folder(I like Typora better for editing since its WYSIWIG). Not being locked down to any specific software was the primary reason I moved away from OneNote.
- nerdponx 5y agoMarkdown, or CommonMark?
- capableweb 5y agoObsidian has it's own flavor of Markdown there is bunch of stuff other Markdowns (including CommonMark) doesn't support. > We strive for maximum capability without breaking any existing formats, therefore we use a slightly unorthodox combination of flavors of markdown. It is broadly CommonMark, with the addition of some functionality from GitHub Flavored Markdown (GFM), some latex support, and our chosen embed syntax https://help.obsidian.md/How+to/Format+your+notes https://help.obsidian.md/How+to/Format+your+notes
- avgcorrection 5y agoThey should call it Markdown* then.
- capableweb 5y agoWhy? "Markdown" is not a standard, it's a loose collection of formats. CommonMark is a standard, and they are not calling it that. Anything that is Markdown-like can be called Markdown. It's the same deal with lisps. Lots of languages are "lisps", even the ones that are slightly different than the ones you're used to. Then there is a Common Lisp that is a language that is also a lisp.
- avgcorrection 5y agoIt’s just nice to be able to differentiate between markdowns that adhere to some existing implementation (GitHub, CommonMark or something else) and those that are their own flavor.[1] “Markdown” is marketing speak for “you probably already know this”. Which yes, sure, but all the little tiny differences between all the different implementations can act as annoying papercuts. At least it’s not wiki markup... [1] GitHub Markdown etc. are fine since they can be called that (X Markdown) and not just “Markdown”.
- capableweb 5y agoLet's see if your favorite "GitHub" accomplishes this task, since you expect this from a much smaller company: Searching for "GitHub Markdown" on Google yields the following two links at the top: - https://guides.github.com/features/mastering-markdown/ https://guides.github.com/features/mastering-markdown/ - https://docs.github.com/en/github/writing-on-github/getting-started-with-writing-and-formatting-on-github/basic-writing-and-formatting-syntax https://docs.github.com/en/github/writing-on-github/getting-... Some snippets from those two pages, where they call their own syntax just "Markdown": > Markdown is a lightweight and easy-to-use syntax for styling all forms of writing on the GitHub platform. > You can use Markdown most places around GitHub: > Here’s an overview of Markdown syntax that you can use anywhere on GitHub.com or in your own text files. > Create sophisticated formatting for your prose and code on GitHub with simple syntax. It's until the bottom of those pages that they start mentioning GitHub Flavored Markdown (GFM). Just like how Obsidian deals with the very same documentation. Not sure what the problem is, Markdown has always been different on different entities on the internet, since there is no common specification. Blaming Obsidian for this seems short-sighted.
- avgcorrection 5y agoYou got me, bud.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- kushan2020 5y agoIf you want WYSIWYG take on opening plain text markdown files, I highly recommend checking https://bangle.io https://bangle.io