3 ms·

I'm not sure I agree that HTML is unpleasant to write. Honestly, even when I'm writing blog posts or articles, I often fall back to writing the HTML myself. It

by CM30 3y ago

I'm not sure I agree that HTML is unpleasant to write. Honestly, even when I'm writing blog posts or articles, I often fall back to writing the HTML myself. It feels about as simple/complex as writing markdown, or using a WYSIWYG editor. Maybe I just don't like being limited by abstractions.

jwells89 3y ago
The main thing that bugs me about HTML is how it’s so easy to goof up closing tags and attributes. Yeah browsers can deal with malformations to some extent and modern editors help prevent them but it still feels not-great. That’s why I like HTML for the site’s frame and markdown for the content. The amount of HTML is then finite and easy to keep correct and Markdown is harder to mess up due to its simplicity.
- mikae1 3y ago
  Remember that there are a few common elements, like <p> and <li>, that you usually don't need to close.
- bentley 3y ago
  Funny, that’s a complaint I have about Markdown. Anytime I use superscript or subscript, or try to nest markup within a list or table or something, I always get the formatting wrong. Whereas in HTML it’s always easy to nest things properly, even when dropping implicit end tags (which I always do), because the rules are both self‐consistent and standardized across implementations.
  - naasking 3y ago
    I agree nesting is easier with HTML. Most of the content I write is not really nested though, particularly when writing notes, to-do lists, etc. the low ceremony of markdown is a huge win over HTML for simple content.
    - bentley 3y ago
      Luckily, I find that dropping implicit elements and closing tags does a lot to keep HTML competitive in that sense.
      - naasking 3y ago
        It helps for sure, but it's still at least 2x more verbose in the ceremony required.
al_borland 3y ago
I’m the same way. I find the abstractions rarely add much for me. They just add needless complexity and future maintenance I won’t want to do. HTML is easy, it works, and doesn’t need as much care and feeding. If I need to update a long neglected site, I can just do it, and don’t need to spend time re-learning whatever abstraction happened to be in vogue when the site was first written. If I’m feeling really fancy, and the need is really there, I might add some PHP for something that needs to be done server side. It’s simple and it works.

by CM30 3y ago

jwells89 3y ago

The main thing that bugs me about HTML is how it’s so easy to goof up closing tags and attributes. Yeah browsers can deal with malformations to some extent and modern editors help prevent them but it still feels not-great. That’s why I like HTML for the site’s frame and markdown for the content. The amount of HTML is then finite and easy to keep correct and Markdown is harder to mess up due to its simplicity.

mikae1 3y ago
Remember that there are a few common elements, like <p> and <li>, that you usually don't need to close.
bentley 3y ago
Funny, that’s a complaint I have about Markdown. Anytime I use superscript or subscript, or try to nest markup within a list or table or something, I always get the formatting wrong. Whereas in HTML it’s always easy to nest things properly, even when dropping implicit end tags (which I always do), because the rules are both self‐consistent and standardized across implementations.
- naasking 3y ago
  I agree nesting is easier with HTML. Most of the content I write is not really nested though, particularly when writing notes, to-do lists, etc. the low ceremony of markdown is a huge win over HTML for simple content.
  - bentley 3y ago
    Luckily, I find that dropping implicit elements and closing tags does a lot to keep HTML competitive in that sense.
    - naasking 3y ago
      It helps for sure, but it's still at least 2x more verbose in the ceremony required.

al_borland 3y ago

I’m the same way. I find the abstractions rarely add much for me. They just add needless complexity and future maintenance I won’t want to do. HTML is easy, it works, and doesn’t need as much care and feeding. If I need to update a long neglected site, I can just do it, and don’t need to spend time re-learning whatever abstraction happened to be in vogue when the site was first written. If I’m feeling really fancy, and the need is really there, I might add some PHP for something that needs to be done server side. It’s simple and it works.