6 ms·
It's not sarcasm. HTML is and always has been a decent format for hand-authoring documents. It's not as nice to use as markdown, but it does support more advanc
by nicoburns 2y ago
It's not sarcasm. HTML is and always has been a decent format for hand-authoring documents. It's not as nice to use as markdown, but it does support more advanced use cases like coloured text.
And if you want an "archival" format that will stand the test of time it's pretty good (so long as your text encoding is readable, HTML will be).
- cma 2y agoversus markdown it is ungreppable with all the escape codes/entities, then you have to use special tooling for search.
- oneeyedpigeon 2y agoAvoid character entities—store your HTML files as UTF-8 and just embed everything.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- cma 2y agoI guess that mostly works but lots of my notes have <>'s. I guess <code> covers most of that
- colonial 2y agoI agree with you, but I will say that Markdown (or at least, all the major "standards" for it) support interleaving HTML both inline and at the block level. Unless you are writing a very bombastic document or want to avoid a rendering step, I'd argue that you'd be best served by just writing CommonMark with embedded HTML.
- oneeyedpigeon 2y agoI'd argue that, at that point, you might as well write HTML. I find it easier to work with one format at a time rather than two intermixed and a typical Markdown document is barely more readable than its equivalent HTML document, while the latter gives you a lot more flexibility and semantic accuracy.