3 ms·
It becomes a "markup" language (ala markdown, etc) when the "markups" are removed and replaced by htlm codes. As you noted, in HN, when using stars they get rem
by jhrobert 14y ago
It becomes a "markup" language (ala markdown, etc) when the "markups" are removed and replaced by htlm codes. As you noted, in HN, when using stars they get removed and replace by some <i>...</i> stuff.
- lutusp 14y ago> It becomes a "markup" language (ala markdown, etc) when the "markups" are removed and replaced by htlm codes. No. Asterisks that aren't lexical content are markup. HTML tags are also markup, just a different markup. When you replace asterisks with HTML tags, you're translating from one markup to another. The markup cycle ends when the markup is rendered as styled text that a human recognizes as lexical content. For example, italicized text.
- jhrobert 14y agoSorry, my explanations were confusing. The thing is I don't "replace" asteriks with HTLM tags, I keep the asterisks visible. If star text star displays star text star in bold (ie, not removing the stars, inserting </b> stuff around the whole construct), is it still a "markup language" ? Let say I process a text file to display it in HTML and the only addition I do is say "quoted content gets italicized". Is that a "markup language", or just some "text embellishment"? The issue I am trying to address is the learning curve with all the existing markup languages. Without going the "wysiwyg" editing way, that is. I figured out that if the "marks" are visible in the final result, they get easy to learn.