2 ms·
I can't meaningfully distinguish any of these criticisms from some you could have made about HTML earlier. None of these are deal-killers.
by jrm4 4y ago
I can't meaningfully distinguish any of these criticisms from some you could have made about HTML earlier. None of these are deal-killers.
- MajimasEyepatch 4y agoThe difference is 30 years of websites and tools being built on HTML. There's an opportunity cost to consider: is formatting simple websites in Markdown and rendering them natively that much more valuable than simply writing them in HTML or using a Markdown-to-HTML tool that it's worth the cost of creating standards, implementing them in browsers, etc. as opposed to putting those efforts elsewhere? If you were starting from scratch, maybe. But it seems like we've already reached a point where existing solutions for Markdown-to-HTML get you almost all of the value and none of the cost.
- charlieyu1 4y agoAdobe was killed rather fast, and I don’t see every part of the HTML+CSS+JS trio is irreplaceable
- jmull 4y agoThe difference is that HTML already exists and browsers support it. For browsers to also support markdown, there should be some use case that isn’t already well-supported.