4 ms·

> The HTML output is antiquated at best. Though the basic structure of headers and paragraphs is generally semantic, there's no modern semantic elements such as

> The HTML output is antiquated at best. Though the basic structure of headers and paragraphs is generally semantic, there's no modern semantic elements such as main, article, section, nav, header, footer, figure, picture, etc. Embedding videos, social media widgets, etc. isn't possible at all. While most other complaints sounded more like the typical markdown grumpiness I've heard before, I do find this an interesting argument. Why even have article, section, etc. if markdown ensures we're never going to use it? It's not like these are truly exotic tags that are complicated in their usage. Of course if you allow mixing html tags with markdown this is a bit of a non-problem in practice.

giantrobot 4y ago
The point of Markdown isn't to replace HTML. It lets you write a plaintext document that can be post-processed into a rich text document (including HTML). It doesn't define the rich text template, styling, or anything else. It certainly isn't meant to have a 1:1 relationship with every HTML element. With Markdown I can type up a document in the most brain dead of editors. I can then effectively read that document in the most brain dead of readers, event just printing it to a terminal. That simple document I can run through any number of post-processors and get great looking documents in a variety of delivery formats.
- vanderZwan 4y ago
  I agree that that is the "point of Markdown", but that is also not as relevant as how it is actually used. It's one thing to use it as a better BB-code in chat programs, forums and on Github, as other comments mention. However, the article seems to be complaining about how it is used to write websites and articles even when patching the holes in Markdown end up being more of a hassle than just using HTML (that MDN screenshot looks horrible). That goes beyond the example you are talking about. The other argument, that perhaps the issue with rich text formatting isn't the rich text formatting, but the fact that historically rich text formatting tools tended produce awful HTML, also sounds like there might be something to it (not sure if that's still true though). I cannot imagine that it would be that hard to produce minimal HTML that supports 90% of basic rich text needs one has, in a way that is perfectly compatible with any classless CSS framework you then decide to throw at the output.
  - giantrobot 4y ago
    > However, the article seems to be complaining about how it is used to write websites and articles even when patching the holes in Markdown end up being more of a hassle than just using HTML (that MDN screenshot looks horrible). Anyone using Markdown for such things is using the wrong tool. That's not the fault of or a failing of Markdown. If someone can't differentiate between the improper use of a tool or failings of the tool maybe they need to not make sweeping statements. Where Markdown is superior to simple HTML is it does not encourage the sort of nesting that makes HTML painful as a grammar to parse. The simpler grammar (blocks delineated with newlines) actually makes the semantic meaning of the markup easier to deal with so a processor can emit clearer HTML/LaTeX/whatever.
mcluck 4y ago
There seems to be some conflating going on here. As the author mentioned, the spec space is a scattered mess. For the same reason, all markdown to HTML compilers are following their own rules (unless they specifically call out the recommendations of one of the specs.) So if you are getting crappy HTML output, get (or write since it's so simple) a better compiler. Many markdown to HTML tools will let you apply templates and specify which tags to use for a given piece of markup. For the layperson that's probably asking a lot but for the technical crowd, it's your own fault if you aren't happy with the output
- vanderZwan 4y ago
  So how would you determine where to put an article, section, header or footer tag with markdown, not counting using raw HTML in markdown??
  - mcluck 4y ago
    Most of the tags you mentioned should only have a single one in the document, generally speaking, so insert them yourself as part of the template. You could make an argument for wanting to have different <section>s which I figure could be built when you encounter a level 2 header or similar. If you want to create more complex documents, use HTML. Markdown isn't the right tool

giantrobot 4y ago

The point of Markdown isn't to replace HTML. It lets you write a plaintext document that can be post-processed into a rich text document (including HTML). It doesn't define the rich text template, styling, or anything else. It certainly isn't meant to have a 1:1 relationship with every HTML element. With Markdown I can type up a document in the most brain dead of editors. I can then effectively read that document in the most brain dead of readers, event just printing it to a terminal. That simple document I can run through any number of post-processors and get great looking documents in a variety of delivery formats.

vanderZwan 4y ago
I agree that that is the "point of Markdown", but that is also not as relevant as how it is actually used. It's one thing to use it as a better BB-code in chat programs, forums and on Github, as other comments mention. However, the article seems to be complaining about how it is used to write websites and articles even when patching the holes in Markdown end up being more of a hassle than just using HTML (that MDN screenshot looks horrible). That goes beyond the example you are talking about. The other argument, that perhaps the issue with rich text formatting isn't the rich text formatting, but the fact that historically rich text formatting tools tended produce awful HTML, also sounds like there might be something to it (not sure if that's still true though). I cannot imagine that it would be that hard to produce minimal HTML that supports 90% of basic rich text needs one has, in a way that is perfectly compatible with any classless CSS framework you then decide to throw at the output.
- giantrobot 4y ago
  > However, the article seems to be complaining about how it is used to write websites and articles even when patching the holes in Markdown end up being more of a hassle than just using HTML (that MDN screenshot looks horrible). Anyone using Markdown for such things is using the wrong tool. That's not the fault of or a failing of Markdown. If someone can't differentiate between the improper use of a tool or failings of the tool maybe they need to not make sweeping statements. Where Markdown is superior to simple HTML is it does not encourage the sort of nesting that makes HTML painful as a grammar to parse. The simpler grammar (blocks delineated with newlines) actually makes the semantic meaning of the markup easier to deal with so a processor can emit clearer HTML/LaTeX/whatever.

mcluck 4y ago

There seems to be some conflating going on here. As the author mentioned, the spec space is a scattered mess. For the same reason, all markdown to HTML compilers are following their own rules (unless they specifically call out the recommendations of one of the specs.) So if you are getting crappy HTML output, get (or write since it's so simple) a better compiler. Many markdown to HTML tools will let you apply templates and specify which tags to use for a given piece of markup. For the layperson that's probably asking a lot but for the technical crowd, it's your own fault if you aren't happy with the output

vanderZwan 4y ago
So how would you determine where to put an article, section, header or footer tag with markdown, not counting using raw HTML in markdown??
- mcluck 4y ago
  Most of the tags you mentioned should only have a single one in the document, generally speaking, so insert them yourself as part of the template. You could make an argument for wanting to have different <section>s which I figure could be built when you encounter a level 2 header or similar. If you want to create more complex documents, use HTML. Markdown isn't the right tool