3 ms·

The very first sentence in that link says “Markdown is a text-to-HTML conversion tool for web writers.” Gruber did not take a "de facto standard" from Usenet a

The very first sentence in that link says “Markdown is a text-to-HTML conversion tool for web writers.” Gruber did not take a "de facto standard" from Usenet and simply write an HTML converter for it. He designed his own markup, borrowing from Usenet and other conventions. The “Acknowledgements” section at the bottom of your link alludes to this fact. Markdown was from the beginning intended as a markup syntax for web CMSs. To say it is a lightweight representation of HTML is correct. The whole point was that every part of the syntax produce a direct HTML equivalent.

CharlesW 2y ago
Gruber writes that Markdown is two things: (1) a plain text formatting syntax; and (2) a software tool, written in Perl, that converts the plain text formatting to HTML. > To say it is a lightweight representation of HTML is correct. It's correct in the context of (2) but not (1). In the context of (1), Markdown is a lightweight markup language for rich text. For example, Pandoc can convert Markdown to formats like PDF, LaTeX, and ePub.
- The_Colonel 2y ago
  Isn't inline HTML valid within Markdown? You could say that Markdown is a superset of HTML.
  - CharlesW 2y ago
    That's an excellent point. Time to update https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Markdown https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Markdown. :^)
  - NekkoDroid 2y ago
    It depends on the dialect you are using. Some support a limited subset of HTML, some allow all and some allow none (maybe HTML/XML comments).
- rpdillon 2y ago
  It's also true in the context of (1), since the syntax specification specifically falls back to HTML for difficult things like tables. This is made abundantly clear on the Syntax page[0]: > Markdown’s syntax is intended for one purpose: to be used as a format for writing for the web. > Markdown is not a replacement for HTML, or even close to it. Its syntax is very small, corresponding only to a very small subset of HTML tags. The idea is not to create a syntax that makes it easier to insert HTML tags. In my opinion, HTML tags are already easy to insert. The idea for Markdown is to make it easy to read, write, and edit prose. HTML is a publishing format; Markdown is a writing format. Thus, Markdown’s formatting syntax only addresses issues that can be conveyed in plain text. > For any markup that is not covered by Markdown’s syntax, you simply use HTML itself. There’s no need to preface it or delimit it to indicate that you’re switching from Markdown to HTML; you just use the tags. Markdown is very coupled to HTML, and is hobbled as a result compared to formats like Tiddlywiki and Org that not only have sophisticated syntax for all kinds of content like tables, but also directives to the parser itself to render particular blocks using an external tool. I wrote a bit about this in 2021 in response to query about why Org mode doesn't use Markdown[1]. [0]: https://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax https://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax [1]: https://rpdillon.net/why-doesnt-emacs-org-mode-just-use-markdown-2021.html https://rpdillon.net/why-doesnt-emacs-org-mode-just-use-mark...
lmm 2y ago
> Markdown was from the beginning intended as a markup syntax for web CMSs. As a matter of history you're right, just as JSON was intended as nothing more than the literal syntax for JavaScript programs. But it turned out to be a lot more widely applicable. > To say it is a lightweight representation of HTML is correct. No, it's a representation of writing. It represents the input not the output.
- jgruber 2y ago
  The comparison JSON is apt. The first few years after I released Markdown, it was far less popular than I expected and hoped it would be. But it grew, and then for a years it was as popular as I’d expected. But then it kept growing, and now it’s far more popular and widely used than I’d ever thought possible. I genuinely now think it’s used in many cases where it shouldn’t be, and exposed to non-technical users who should be using something WYSIWYG, not markup.

CharlesW 2y ago

Gruber writes that Markdown is two things: (1) a plain text formatting syntax; and (2) a software tool, written in Perl, that converts the plain text formatting to HTML. > To say it is a lightweight representation of HTML is correct. It's correct in the context of (2) but not (1). In the context of (1), Markdown is a lightweight markup language for rich text. For example, Pandoc can convert Markdown to formats like PDF, LaTeX, and ePub.

The_Colonel 2y ago
Isn't inline HTML valid within Markdown? You could say that Markdown is a superset of HTML.
- CharlesW 2y ago
  That's an excellent point. Time to update https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Markdown https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Markdown. :^)
- NekkoDroid 2y ago
  It depends on the dialect you are using. Some support a limited subset of HTML, some allow all and some allow none (maybe HTML/XML comments).
rpdillon 2y ago
It's also true in the context of (1), since the syntax specification specifically falls back to HTML for difficult things like tables. This is made abundantly clear on the Syntax page[0]: > Markdown’s syntax is intended for one purpose: to be used as a format for writing for the web. > Markdown is not a replacement for HTML, or even close to it. Its syntax is very small, corresponding only to a very small subset of HTML tags. The idea is not to create a syntax that makes it easier to insert HTML tags. In my opinion, HTML tags are already easy to insert. The idea for Markdown is to make it easy to read, write, and edit prose. HTML is a publishing format; Markdown is a writing format. Thus, Markdown’s formatting syntax only addresses issues that can be conveyed in plain text. > For any markup that is not covered by Markdown’s syntax, you simply use HTML itself. There’s no need to preface it or delimit it to indicate that you’re switching from Markdown to HTML; you just use the tags. Markdown is very coupled to HTML, and is hobbled as a result compared to formats like Tiddlywiki and Org that not only have sophisticated syntax for all kinds of content like tables, but also directives to the parser itself to render particular blocks using an external tool. I wrote a bit about this in 2021 in response to query about why Org mode doesn't use Markdown[1]. [0]: https://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax https://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax [1]: https://rpdillon.net/why-doesnt-emacs-org-mode-just-use-markdown-2021.html https://rpdillon.net/why-doesnt-emacs-org-mode-just-use-mark...

lmm 2y ago

> Markdown was from the beginning intended as a markup syntax for web CMSs. As a matter of history you're right, just as JSON was intended as nothing more than the literal syntax for JavaScript programs. But it turned out to be a lot more widely applicable. > To say it is a lightweight representation of HTML is correct. No, it's a representation of writing. It represents the input not the output.

jgruber 2y ago
The comparison JSON is apt. The first few years after I released Markdown, it was far less popular than I expected and hoped it would be. But it grew, and then for a years it was as popular as I’d expected. But then it kept growing, and now it’s far more popular and widely used than I’d ever thought possible. I genuinely now think it’s used in many cases where it shouldn’t be, and exposed to non-technical users who should be using something WYSIWYG, not markup.