3 ms·
Exactly what I was thinking, by omitting the <html> <head> and <body> HTML can be quite concise [1]. Additionally the closing </li> can be omitted from lists an
by SPBS 4y ago
Exactly what I was thinking, by omitting the <html> <head> and <body> HTML can be quite concise [1]. Additionally the closing </li> can be omitted from lists and <li> barely a step over using - for bullet points.
The worst part about HTML is the links, though. Anchor tags are awful. Having to repeatedly type <a href="..."> and closing with </a> is wayyy too boilerplate much for for something that is simply surrounded with [square](brackets) in markdown.
[1] I go to https://meiert.com/en/blog/optional-html/ https://meiert.com/en/blog/optional-html/ for reference.
- MrVandemar 4y agoI have the opposite problem. HTML <a href> links are consistent with the rest of the language. <a href>Something</a> makes the same kind of sense as <em>something</em>. But markdown? I'm always forgetting the order of the (link)[text] or [link](text) or [text](link) or (text)[link]. It's just something that's invented, and not consistent with the rest of itself.
- chrismorgan 4y agoAnd, for the specific syntax: parentheses to surround the URL is jut bad because parentheses are URL code points, so you can’t just insert regular serialised URLs in Markdown in all cases. (See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33340097 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33340097 for more explanation.)
- dandy23 4y agoThe org-mode version is better in my opinion. Either [[link]] or [[link][text]]. Only uses square brackets and the optional text comes second which makes logical sense.