Any news re tables and Markdown?

[Jelks Cabaniss]

David Herren wrote:
>> I just can't worry too much about table syntax for users of
>> non-proportional fonts.

> I understand your sentiment, but at the same time, none of the rest
> of the markdown syntax requires the user to select a particular
> typeface...

True, but none of the rest of Markdown syntax is dependent on the visual
appearance of plain text conventions either.  Yes, you could have some kind
pseudo-text-markup that looks nothing like a table (either in proportional
or monospaced fonts), but that breaks with Markdown's "just like email"
approach in a rather large way.  

Notice that *most* web-based mailing lists archives (including the one for
this list) are rendered in browsers in a monospaced font.  There's a reason
for that.

Note also the table-like outputs of command-line programs (e.g., `ls -l`,
`ps`, etc.) -- could you imagine those in a proportional font?  

And the aforementioned RFCs, which are *required* to be submitted in plain
text format.

Etc.

You don't have to use, as you said, "a particular typeface".  *Any*
monospaced font will do.  Barring that, there's always raw HTML, which is
what we have to do today anyway...


/Jelks