Proposed table specification (long!)
orc at pell.portland.or.us
Wed May 18 13:58:49 EDT 2011
On May 18, 2011, at 10:21 AM, Bowerbird at aol.com wrote:
> > The idea of Markdown, not the implementation, is what's special.
> nope. lots of other people had "the idea" long before gruber.
I believe that you misunderstand the argument here. "The idea"
is not ascii formatting, it's the particular type of ascii formatting.
Markdown tries to take advantage of existing methods of ascii formatting
found in mail and usenet news, and tries to avoid lunging off into
apl-style symbol soup for markup.
It's a considerable bonus that Mr. Gruber isn't constantly tweaking
the language definition, and users who start using markdown *now* will
still be able to use it two years down the line w/o having to retrain
> but if all of you implementers got yourselves _around_ a table and
> decided to develop "markaround" to go _around_ gruber, you could.
You mean like the way there's a common extension for definition
lists? Or like there's a common extension for tables? I'm not
sure just what you're arguing against or for, unless it's the tyranny
of sticking to a standard.
> and once again, none of this is a dig. i haven't shared my own z.m.l.
> with the world because i want to retain control over it,
I had a vanity markup language once, too. I'm happier using one
can be found elsewhere; The markdown that I find on iOS apps is the
markdown I find on Github is the markdown I find on Reddit is the
markdown I find on my own web pages.
> > Still, thanks for your analysis. It's refreshing to have
> > an outsider's opinion one time in a while.
> hey, who you calling "an outsider"? i was researching light-markup
> years before gruber and swartz came along. this is my house, and
> you kids better stop playing on my lawn... outsider my ass! ;
> seriously, though, markdown has been great for light-markup, and
> i sincerely hope that you guys move markaround to the next level...
> drang said:
> > Fish, eh? I thought I smelled something…
> you funny! :+)
> but if you sincerely want to "call" it, you can.
> i have promised to release my app when i get
> 100 people signed-up on this web-page here:
> > http://jaguarps.blogspot.com/2011/04/blog-post_14.html
> once i put it out in the world, you can criticize it
> to the depths and heights of your heart's desire.
> yes, i'm sittin' here, right on the edge of the dunk-tank,
> daring you to step up and fire a hardball at the target...
> albert said:
> > Extensions address the question of limited scope, and
> > if they are to grow useful, it seems reasonable to inform them
> > with a more abstract purpose; e.g., enriching plain text with
> > logical structure, rather than making macros for html.
> that's quite astute.
> thomas said:
> > You may also look at the syntax specification for kramdown
> you've done a very good job, thomas, really a smashup job...
> my reservation is based on my reaction that "this isn't simple".
> that might be the way you've explained it. (like michel's work,
> your documentation seems to be aimed at the _format_wonks,_
> who care about "block level versus span level" and such things.)
> or it might be that the underlying framework is just too difficult.
> (specifically, i wonder if all the hassles of "lazy syntax linewrap"
> outweigh the convenience... in my own work, i had to offer that
> -- as project gutenberg files have mid-paragraph linebreaks --
> but i worked out a way that it doesn't have to be quite so hard.)
> so i just can't tell if it's the documentation or the framework, but
> either way, if you can't find a more simple way to explain all of it
> to ordinary people, i'm afraid you ain't gonna get a lot of uptake.
> Markdown-Discuss mailing list
> Markdown-Discuss at six.pairlist.net
More information about the Markdown-Discuss