markdown-discuss@six.pairlist.net

[Bowerbird at aol.com]

jelks said:
>   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.

and that reason is what?

that that is the lowest common denominator?

don't get me wrong -- i _like_ lowest common denominator.
that's one of the best things about plain text, in my opinion.

but if i have to view something using a monospaced font,
well, i'm quite likely to just move on to something else...

all those carefully-formatted monospaced signature-blocks
people use?  sorry, no effect on me, and i won't be bothered.

steve always scoffed at how unesthetic bill was, and
used the monospaced character-based dos as evidence.
(wish i had the quote; it was in that p.b.s. documentary.)

i don't begrudge anyone their use of any font they like.
but monospaced fonts make _this_person_ cringe...      :+)

besides, wouldn't do any good to assume a proportional font,
because the metrics depend upon _which_ one it actually is.

but it sure would be great to have a commonly-accepted one
as the "default" metrics, so the lowest common denominator
wouldn't have to stoop to so low a level as being monospaced.


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

well, yes, as a matter of fact, i can imagine that.  quite easily.
and in my imagination, the columns always line up.  perfectly.
is it your contention that it is impossible to make them do so?
just buffer the output, analyze it, and reformat it as necessary,
using the font the user has specified as their default, and display.

***

john said:
>   You can't make a nice-looking table in plain text 
>   using proportional typefaces.

but you _can_ make one that looks nice to a user who
views it in the same font, or one with similar metrics.

and that very same generalization holds for monospace fonts:
the nice-looking ones that you make using a monospaced font
look like crap when they are viewed using a proportional font.

the only difference (and i concede that it is a real difference)
is we have a _category_ for fonts with the monospaced metric.
which means there is a convenience factor.  that is the benefit.
the cost we pay for that benefit is having to look at ugly fonts.   :+)

***

i've stayed out of this thread because i want to see what you guys
come up with, first, independent of any input from me, because i was
very sure that i would learn something from the exchange.  but maybe
a good question to ponder is whether you desire that markdown _text_
be viewable in _any_ text-viewer, or optimized for a _specific_ one,
which you could write.  i submit that if you wanna be able to use any,
the table problem is insolvable (albeit fairly easy to yield to methods
that give acceptable results); and if you wanna write a specific viewer,
you can solve the problem without resorting to monospaced restrictions,
such that any table composed in any font displays ok using any other font.

***

chris said:
>   Tab characters.

well yes, chris, tabs can be a solution, yes sir.

some people will rule them out by definition,
because some text-viewers don't support 'em.
(i'd disagree with those people, but so what?)

so this goes back to the issue i just raised...

-bowerbird