Proposed table specification (long!)
waylan at gmail.com
Tue May 10 09:26:38 EDT 2011
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Simon Bull <waysoftheearth at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> I have been thinking on Markdown's lack of "proper" table support for a long
> while now. Here's where I have arrived...
> ## I Don't Like HTML Tables
> It is often argued that embedded HTML is the way to markdown rich tables.
> Unfortunately, this contradicts the higher markdown ideal that a raw
> markdown document (including tables!) should be good
> 1. Firstly for readers,
> 2. Secondly for authors,
> 3. Lastly for parsers which don't even rate a mention because markdown is
> for Humans.
In response to this I will quote the paragraph from the syntax rules
 which likely gave you this impression:
> Markdown is not a replacement for HTML, or even close to it. Its syntax is very
> small, corresponding only to a very small subset of HTML tags. The idea is not
> to create a syntax that makes it easier to insert HTML tags. In my opinion, HTML
> tags are already easy to insert. The idea for Markdown is to make it easy to read,
> write, and edit prose. HTML is a publishing format; Markdown is a writing format.
> Thus, Markdown’s formatting syntax only addresses issues that can be conveyed
> in plain text.
Note that is says "easy to read, write, and edit prose" -- "prose" not
tabular data. Taking this (along with the rest of that section of the
document, it is clear (to me at least) that there is no place for a
table syntax in markdown. Now, if you want to implement a third party
add-on, fine. And if that third party add-on becomes popular, then
maybe others will add it to there implementations as well. Maybe,
eventually, if a single format becomes popular enough, the community
at large will accept it. Until then, I'm not interested. If you want
it, go build it!
\X/ /-\ `/ |_ /-\ |\|
More information about the Markdown-Discuss