3 ms·
Ah, I thought we're talking typewriter-old times. Yes, sure, I do remember the proliferation of weird wiki syntaxes, and I also remember seeing markdown as a br
by akavel 5y ago
Ah, I thought we're talking typewriter-old times. Yes, sure, I do remember the proliferation of weird wiki syntaxes, and I also remember seeing markdown as a breath of fresh air in its readability and intuitiveness. I do believe the same as the poster before me, that markdown is the closest among them to what could be seen either in typewriting, or on usenet. Asciidoc and rst have some of it, but break the illusion by introducing too much weirdness (see esp. the syntax for links and lists in both of them). Until proven otherwise, I can't believe those happening on usenet and not being ridiculed.
- cycomanic 5y agoI would argue that rst is much closer to how things were done with typewriters. One example: I can not think of one document written on a typewriter that indicated a heading with #, but just a brief search for typewriter document images will get you ones with "--" underlines as headings. For me that is actually still the biggest difference between rst and Markdown, and I still think underlines look much more like headings, but I also find # much easier to write
- halostatue 5y agoRemember that Markdown supports both SETEXT (# header, ## header, ### header) and ATX (header\n======, header\n------) headers. I prefer SETEXT headers for writing since you can use all the supported hX levels, but if all you need is h1 and h2, then ATX headers are usable.