Proposed table specification (long!)
david.chambers.05 at gmail.com
Wed May 11 04:05:24 EDT 2011
Fletcher T. Penney <fletcher at fletcherpenney.net> wrote:
But I think the biggest issue is the monospace vs proportional
> font problem. This plagues every proposed table syntax out there (to
> my knowledge) --- tables just aren't going to look right in both font types
> in plain text files. Proper alignment is a key feature of tables, and it's
> frustrating when this is destroyed by changing the font.
The fact that columns in such tables are not aligned when a proportional
font is used is not pertinent, in my opinion. Even a *jagged* "Markdown"
table does a better job of representing data in a tabular fashion than
HTML's mess of <tr>s, <th>s, and <td>s.
On 11 May 2011 00:09, Simon Bull <waysoftheearth at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Hello Thomas,
> In reply to your comments...
> Yes, I have assumed mono-spaced (or equivalent) rendering throughout.
> Comparing examples 1.1 and example 2.3.b, yes you are correct. I need to
> update the description given for 1.1 (the so called "compact form"). The
> compact form (without blank lines or rules between rows) will always result
> in a single table row with multiple lines per row.
> However, it would be possible to also specify a "single line per row"
> interpretation if that is a desired feature.
> Your comment re: "line breaks" versus "blank lines" is also taken on board.
> Thanks for your valuable comments,
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Thomas Humiston <tom at jumpingrock.net>wrote:
>> Notes from a writer who makes occasional light use of Markdown and is not
>> involved in implementations at all (nor especially familiar with other -down
>> table syntaxes):
>> I view my plain-text emails in a proportional font (Verdana). Simon's
>> tables look ragged that way, but readable and not terribly unpleasant.
>> Such decoding of occasional monospace-intended bits is, in my view, a
>> fairly conventional matter in email, and thus congruent with Markdown's
>> inspiration. Perhaps the matter of mono vs. proportional is not such a
>> bugbear after all, at least for small-to-medium tables (and for the rest,
>> there's always HTML).
>> But wait -- Given 2.1.b's handling of empty cells, it seems the proposal
>> still assumes some degree of monospace involvement. Similarly, 3.1.a speaks
>> of omitting a space-denoted column break from "between" two columns, a break
>> that is "between" in a sense (either visual or numeric) that's likely
>> obvious in monospace only.
>> So in the proposal, colspans do depend on character counts, and thus on
>> monospace writing tools (except in tables simple enough for manual
>> counting). Well, I suppose most authors of Markdown texts use such tools
>> A confusing bit for me: Section 2.3.b leaves me thinking that the compact
>> form is usable only for single-row bodies, and NOT for, say, "three rows and
>> three columns" as indicated in Section 1.1. Also, I'd suggest instructing
>> authors to use "blank lines" as Gruber does instead of "line breaks" (as the
>> latter connotes carriage returns and/or newline characters).
>> - TH
>> Simon Bull wrote:
>>> THE PEOPLE OF MIDDLE-EARTH
>>> People Homeland Tongue
>>> Elves Rivendell, Quenya,
>>> Mirkwood, Sindarin,
>>> Lorien Nandorin
>>> Dwarves Erebor Khuzdul
>>> Hobbits The Shire, Westron
>> Markdown-Discuss mailing list
>> Markdown-Discuss at six.pairlist.net
> Markdown-Discuss mailing list
> Markdown-Discuss at six.pairlist.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Markdown-Discuss