4 ms·

> allows structure to grow organically > powerful feature ... Internal Links. > plain text files Well, they're not _plain_ text - there is some markup.

> allows structure to grow organically > powerful feature ... Internal Links. > plain text files Well, they're not _plain_ text - there is some markup. So that invites the question - why not HyperText Markup Language? Doesn't HTML have all of these features - hyperlinks, folder structures, "plain" text? Isn't HTML also future proof? It's been around long enough. And doesn't it also work offline? There's a bunch of different apps out there that support viewing these both on and offline. So, do people just use Obsidian/Markdown because they like dislike "<em>HTML</em>"? edit: I'm not saying it's "wrong" to dislike HTML. I'm 50% trolling and 50% saying none of these are features of Obsidian. They're features of HTML (and Markdown is its shorthand).

paxys 3y ago
HTML is (1) a lot more painful and verbose to write and (2) impossible to decipher in source mode. Markdown fixes both these problems.
el_oni 3y ago
they like it because # title this is the paragraph is more natural to write than: <html> <head>...<head/> <body> <h1> title </h1> <p>this is the paragraph</p> </body> </html> when you're just jotting some thoughts down.
- jimmytucson 3y ago
  So the answer to my original question is - yes :)
  - ParetoOptimal 3y ago
    Eh, the em example is reductive and makes it seem like markdown doesn't have much advantage. If you rewrite your comment with lists I think your question becomes self-explanatory.
    - jimmytucson 3y ago
      But you don't need the head and body stuff. This renders perfectly fine in a web browser on my local machine: <h1>My Title</h1> <p>This is a paragraph.</p> For sure, you need an end tag, and Markdown doesn't. But for simple note taking, are you really writing deeply nested HTML?
      - davisoneee 3y ago
        The main benefit is that markdown is really readable _without_ rendering. You don't need to edit and then open in a browser. You can comfortably read plaintext that has a little structure, while HTML adds some ceremony that makes it a bit harder to glance at the material as the tags are much more in your face.
- putsan 3y ago
  Totally agree
skinnyarms 3y ago
Markdown is so much easier to read and maintain in its raw form. I can't imagine trying to take meeting notes in html. ``` - [ ] Item 1 - [ ] Item 2 ``` ``` <ul> <li><checkbox> <label>Item 1</label></li> <li><checkbox> <label>Item 2</label></li> </ul> ```
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
hiAndrewQuinn 3y ago
Pretty much. You want to optimize for fluidity in writing, and angle brackets just get in the way too much.
aeonik 3y ago
The main point of Markdown is that it's easy to write and read without any extra rendering processes. https://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax#philosophy https://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax#philosop... Here is a nice article of many light weight markup languages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_markup_language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_markup_language I like Markdown a lot, though I prefer org-mode due to the extra features it comes with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Org-mode https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Org-mode
prima-facie 3y ago
HTML was not really meant to be generated by humans. Just like XML, it's supposed to be machine readable first and foremost.
- jimmytucson 3y ago
  This has to be factually wrong, no? The first web servers just served documents from a directory called `htdocs`.
infecto 3y ago
Do you write your documentation and notes using HTML? Serious question because if not not, why even ask the question? Why does this invite the question? One can easily see that markdown requires less characters and is a quicker flow for jotting down notes. You can open up a markdown file in any file viewer and easily read it without any view processing...not the same for HTML. Silly question.
mdhb 3y ago
You’re getting smashed for no particularly good reason in my opinion. I am in the camp if I like the idea of Obsidian but I have a bunch of other stuff I want to include and do stuff with like JSON-LD data for example. But the idea of writing raw HTML is in fact a huge pain in the ass as everyone was all too eager to point out here. We have had markdown to HTML converters and visual editing experiences for a long time now and I don’t know why the argument has to be “write in raw HTML” I barely even want to write Markdown when taking notes, I just want to write. So in that spirit I think HTML and and in browser experience is in fact the right answer I just need to put an editor on top of it and a way to run code when I hit publish to update the graph visualisations and statistics that people seem to really like with Obsidian. I actually think this might be a really good usecase for the built in IndexedDB API built into browsers so long as you can also back it up and sync across devices.
- jimmytucson 3y ago
  Yeah, clearly I touched a nerve :) But I still don't know what Obsidian gives you besides letting you write in Markdown instead of HTML. And that is basically a Markdown to HTML converter, as you pointed out.
  - chrisweekly 3y ago
    It's hard to overstate the flowstate Obsidian enables with live / wysiwyg editor view -- enjoy the clean look of rendered HTML while typing simple markdown and kbd shortcuts -- "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts". There are many other reasons I love Obsidian, but most of all it's the core function -- the editor interface, atop my local, private markdown files.
    - mdhb 3y ago
      Yes but this is the exact point. We could have that exact same workflow and user interface with HTML. I (presumably along with the person you’re replying to) don’t understand what value Markdown as the storage format is providing here exactly but I can think of many limitations it imposes.
atrus 3y ago
Well, markdown is a lot easier to read "unrendered". It's a lot more accessible to non-technical people as well, since with html sometimes you need to put the content between two matching tags (h1), sometimes it needs to go between a tag and inside a tag (a), and sometimes there isn't even a matching tag! (img)
IggleSniggle 3y ago
I disagree that markdown is a shorthand for HTML. It's a plain text doc with standardized ASCII stylistic features, that is basically exactly the way you would want to write a plain text document most of the time. It's not really markup. It's markdown. I agree the noted features aren't really special to obsidian, but they might feel special when you consider markdown first and foremost as a plaintext format, and only second as a style convention
PurpleRamen 3y ago
> Well, they're not _plain_ text - there is some markup. Markup is still plaintext. > why not HyperText Markup Language? Why not json or yaml? If you remove the users ability to write the text directly, then why limit yourself to the unstructured mess that HTML is? > Doesn't HTML have all of these features - hyperlinks, folder structures, "plain" text? Isn't HTML also future proof? Markdown is human-friendly. There is a whole ecology around using it for those usecases. And you can create HTML from markdown anyway.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

paxys 3y ago

HTML is (1) a lot more painful and verbose to write and (2) impossible to decipher in source mode. Markdown fixes both these problems.

el_oni 3y ago

they like it because # title this is the paragraph is more natural to write than: <html> <head>...<head/> <body> <h1> title </h1> <p>this is the paragraph</p> </body> </html> when you're just jotting some thoughts down.

jimmytucson 3y ago
So the answer to my original question is - yes :)
- ParetoOptimal 3y ago
  Eh, the em example is reductive and makes it seem like markdown doesn't have much advantage. If you rewrite your comment with lists I think your question becomes self-explanatory.
  - jimmytucson 3y ago
    But you don't need the head and body stuff. This renders perfectly fine in a web browser on my local machine: <h1>My Title</h1> <p>This is a paragraph.</p> For sure, you need an end tag, and Markdown doesn't. But for simple note taking, are you really writing deeply nested HTML?
    - davisoneee 3y ago
      The main benefit is that markdown is really readable _without_ rendering. You don't need to edit and then open in a browser. You can comfortably read plaintext that has a little structure, while HTML adds some ceremony that makes it a bit harder to glance at the material as the tags are much more in your face.
putsan 3y ago
Totally agree

skinnyarms 3y ago

Markdown is so much easier to read and maintain in its raw form. I can't imagine trying to take meeting notes in html. ``` - [ ] Item 1 - [ ] Item 2 ``` ``` <ul> <li><checkbox> <label>Item 1</label></li> <li><checkbox> <label>Item 2</label></li> </ul> ```

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

hiAndrewQuinn 3y ago

Pretty much. You want to optimize for fluidity in writing, and angle brackets just get in the way too much.

aeonik 3y ago

The main point of Markdown is that it's easy to write and read without any extra rendering processes. https://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax#philosophy https://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax#philosop... Here is a nice article of many light weight markup languages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_markup_language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_markup_language I like Markdown a lot, though I prefer org-mode due to the extra features it comes with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Org-mode https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Org-mode

prima-facie 3y ago

HTML was not really meant to be generated by humans. Just like XML, it's supposed to be machine readable first and foremost.

jimmytucson 3y ago
This has to be factually wrong, no? The first web servers just served documents from a directory called `htdocs`.

infecto 3y ago

Do you write your documentation and notes using HTML? Serious question because if not not, why even ask the question? Why does this invite the question? One can easily see that markdown requires less characters and is a quicker flow for jotting down notes. You can open up a markdown file in any file viewer and easily read it without any view processing...not the same for HTML. Silly question.

mdhb 3y ago

You’re getting smashed for no particularly good reason in my opinion. I am in the camp if I like the idea of Obsidian but I have a bunch of other stuff I want to include and do stuff with like JSON-LD data for example. But the idea of writing raw HTML is in fact a huge pain in the ass as everyone was all too eager to point out here. We have had markdown to HTML converters and visual editing experiences for a long time now and I don’t know why the argument has to be “write in raw HTML” I barely even want to write Markdown when taking notes, I just want to write. So in that spirit I think HTML and and in browser experience is in fact the right answer I just need to put an editor on top of it and a way to run code when I hit publish to update the graph visualisations and statistics that people seem to really like with Obsidian. I actually think this might be a really good usecase for the built in IndexedDB API built into browsers so long as you can also back it up and sync across devices.

jimmytucson 3y ago
Yeah, clearly I touched a nerve :) But I still don't know what Obsidian gives you besides letting you write in Markdown instead of HTML. And that is basically a Markdown to HTML converter, as you pointed out.
- chrisweekly 3y ago
  It's hard to overstate the flowstate Obsidian enables with live / wysiwyg editor view -- enjoy the clean look of rendered HTML while typing simple markdown and kbd shortcuts -- "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts". There are many other reasons I love Obsidian, but most of all it's the core function -- the editor interface, atop my local, private markdown files.
  - mdhb 3y ago
    Yes but this is the exact point. We could have that exact same workflow and user interface with HTML. I (presumably along with the person you’re replying to) don’t understand what value Markdown as the storage format is providing here exactly but I can think of many limitations it imposes.

atrus 3y ago

Well, markdown is a lot easier to read "unrendered". It's a lot more accessible to non-technical people as well, since with html sometimes you need to put the content between two matching tags (h1), sometimes it needs to go between a tag and inside a tag (a), and sometimes there isn't even a matching tag! (img)

IggleSniggle 3y ago

I disagree that markdown is a shorthand for HTML. It's a plain text doc with standardized ASCII stylistic features, that is basically exactly the way you would want to write a plain text document most of the time. It's not really markup. It's markdown. I agree the noted features aren't really special to obsidian, but they might feel special when you consider markdown first and foremost as a plaintext format, and only second as a style convention

PurpleRamen 3y ago

> Well, they're not _plain_ text - there is some markup. Markup is still plaintext. > why not HyperText Markup Language? Why not json or yaml? If you remove the users ability to write the text directly, then why limit yourself to the unstructured mess that HTML is? > Doesn't HTML have all of these features - hyperlinks, folder structures, "plain" text? Isn't HTML also future proof? Markdown is human-friendly. There is a whole ecology around using it for those usecases. And you can create HTML from markdown anyway.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]