4 ms·
> In any case, avoiding raw HTML is a huge improvement. Why is that? Raw HTML is quite simple to understand and edit. Especially modern html5. There may be
by enriquto 4y ago
> In any case, avoiding raw HTML is a huge improvement.
Why is that? Raw HTML is quite simple to understand and edit. Especially modern html5. There may be a slightly marginal improvement with bold markings with stars versus b tags, but I wouldn't call it "huge" by any means.
EDIT: of course, you can build nightmares with plain HTML. Especially when it is auto-generated. But hand-written simple HTML is essentially equivalent to markdown, and I'd say that it is even simpler for some things (e.g., links, anchors and tables).
- Lvl999Noob 4y agoOne example was given in the article itself. Raw HTML requires escaping html tags. This leads to completely inlegible code that would be impossible for someone to review without rendering the page and checking the output.
- enriquto 4y agoThe xmp tag would be the natural answer to this problem. It still works in browsers, but unfortunately it became deprecated on the html5 standard. A hackish (thus beautiful!) answer is to use textarea tags, suitably styled.
- hiAndrewQuinn 4y agoReading HTML with your eyes includes far more line noise than reading Markdown, though.