4 ms·

I think the bigger problem is that apps that don't need/shouldn't use markdown reach for it as a default and build upon it when they would have been served bett

I think the bigger problem is that apps that don't need/shouldn't use markdown reach for it as a default and build upon it when they would have been served better investing in richer markup. Take ulysses (mentioned in the article) for example. It has grown into a full-fledged writing and word processing application, but its being based on markdown originally has only hampered that. They've had to implement all of these clunky extensions and features in terms of markdown, and as the post states, try to hide the fact that it's all markdown to make it feel more like a classic word processor. At this point it just makes the whole experience clunky. People that just want to write markdown deal with weird extensions and frustrating syntax hiding, people that don't need to learn some minimal markdown just to use a word processor... It's 2024. I hope companies start to realize that markdown is a fantastic solution for certain cases but it is not the only solution. Some applications really are better served by more complex, but much more expressive markup languages, especially if they are going to shield the user from it all anyways.

jasonpbecker 2y ago
Of course you can use any number of ways to implement rich text or formatting. A lot of people want Markdown because of the portability of plain text. Markdown has served as a good mechanism for plain text formats that still can do a bit more. Ulysses would lose a significant portion of its audience if it moved to it's own syntax or some form of rich text or its own binary. A new audience would likely become interested-- though fighting Microsoft Word is ... hard to say the least. Maybe that's where Ulysses wants to go, and its own implementation of some non-standard elements suggests that. But I also know people who will not use Ulysses because of its non-standard Markdown elements resulting in files that are less portable.
sbuttgereit 2y ago
Couldn't agree more. I find that I'll choose Markdown (assuming it's a choice) when I expect multi-modal consumption... where a given text will in some contexts simply be presented as-is using plain text and the text can also take advantage of rendering into a more styled presentation. I write in-database comments (e.g. PostgreSQL's `COMMENT ON [...]`) using Markdown for this reason. My go-to database documentation tool of choice (https://schemaspy.org https://schemaspy.org) will very nicely render the Markdown into styled documentation integrated into the rest of the documentation it generates, but the plain text rendering when I'm looking at those same comments via `psql`, where no Markdown rendering is applied, still look decent due to how Markdown works.
j1elo 2y ago
Ulysses? Take an app with a MUCH wider audience: WhatsApp! They use Markdown-esque syntax for message formatting. It mostly is Markdown, with a single caveat that gets me a lot: *Single asterisks* become bold, instead of italic. For italics, you have to use _underscores_. Other syntax works fine. Slack also uses Markdown. In summary that's nice as it is just one single syntax to remember across systems. I wouldn't enjoy too much that every app started having its own different, more expressive syntax, at least not for apps which their primary job is communication, not text edition.
- voidUpdate 2y ago
  It really annoys me that services can't decide if * is bold or italics. It makes the most sense to me as italics, so when I use whatsapp or youtube I always get annoyed that it did the wrong one
  - cwillu 2y ago
    I can't comprehend why * wouldn't be bold. Given that underlining is how you italics when you can't italics, _ makes perfect sense.
    - digging 2y ago
      > Given that underlining is how you italics when you can't italics In my experience underlining is how you bold when you can't bold.
      - JoshTriplett 2y ago
        In my experience, underscores are how you underline when you can't underline. Asterisks are emphasis, which is typically italics.
        kccqzy 2y ago
        That's completely true, but emphasis is normally rendered by italics too. (See for example the <em> element in HTML with the default CSS.) Emphasis is the semantic, italics is the presentation. From this perspective both underscores and single asterisks should render into italics.
Jondar 2y ago
[dead]

jasonpbecker 2y ago

Of course you can use any number of ways to implement rich text or formatting. A lot of people want Markdown because of the portability of plain text. Markdown has served as a good mechanism for plain text formats that still can do a bit more. Ulysses would lose a significant portion of its audience if it moved to it's own syntax or some form of rich text or its own binary. A new audience would likely become interested-- though fighting Microsoft Word is ... hard to say the least. Maybe that's where Ulysses wants to go, and its own implementation of some non-standard elements suggests that. But I also know people who will not use Ulysses because of its non-standard Markdown elements resulting in files that are less portable.

sbuttgereit 2y ago

Couldn't agree more. I find that I'll choose Markdown (assuming it's a choice) when I expect multi-modal consumption... where a given text will in some contexts simply be presented as-is using plain text and the text can also take advantage of rendering into a more styled presentation. I write in-database comments (e.g. PostgreSQL's `COMMENT ON [...]`) using Markdown for this reason. My go-to database documentation tool of choice (https://schemaspy.org https://schemaspy.org) will very nicely render the Markdown into styled documentation integrated into the rest of the documentation it generates, but the plain text rendering when I'm looking at those same comments via `psql`, where no Markdown rendering is applied, still look decent due to how Markdown works.

j1elo 2y ago

Ulysses? Take an app with a MUCH wider audience: WhatsApp! They use Markdown-esque syntax for message formatting. It mostly is Markdown, with a single caveat that gets me a lot: *Single asterisks* become bold, instead of italic. For italics, you have to use _underscores_. Other syntax works fine. Slack also uses Markdown. In summary that's nice as it is just one single syntax to remember across systems. I wouldn't enjoy too much that every app started having its own different, more expressive syntax, at least not for apps which their primary job is communication, not text edition.

voidUpdate 2y ago
It really annoys me that services can't decide if * is bold or italics. It makes the most sense to me as italics, so when I use whatsapp or youtube I always get annoyed that it did the wrong one
- cwillu 2y ago
  I can't comprehend why * wouldn't be bold. Given that underlining is how you italics when you can't italics, _ makes perfect sense.
  - digging 2y ago
    > Given that underlining is how you italics when you can't italics In my experience underlining is how you bold when you can't bold.
    - JoshTriplett 2y ago
      In my experience, underscores are how you underline when you can't underline. Asterisks are emphasis, which is typically italics.
      - kccqzy 2y ago
        That's completely true, but emphasis is normally rendered by italics too. (See for example the <em> element in HTML with the default CSS.) Emphasis is the semantic, italics is the presentation. From this perspective both underscores and single asterisks should render into italics.

Jondar 2y ago

[dead]