markdown and vim

[Chris Lott]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Christian Sciberras <uuf6429 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Why should I spare it to the whole list? If some guy loves debating Steve

> Jobs and Apples,

> why am I not allowed to debate something inherently relevant to the list?


Because it really isn't relevant to the list at this point as neither
of us are talking about Markdown itself.


> MarkDown has been, since its inception, all about SIMPLE TEXT.

> If you "shortcuts" make you more productive, it means it has FAILED.


No, it means that things I normally would have to type X characters
(or type and click X times) to achieve can be done with fewer
characters and/or clicks. This has nothing to do with Markdown, but it
does have to do with the editor. It's, at least,  a matter of literal
time.


> In the end, with the shortcuts, it's like any other regular WYSIWYG, no?

> The point behind MarkDown is exactly that, everyone can understand what it

> means without highlighting, shortcuts or whatever.


No, shortcuts have nothing to do with WYSIWYG, at least not as I mean
them. And syntax highlighting, again, has nothing to do with a failure
of Markdown. It is just the reality that the way people scan text has
a physical property that allows for improvement in efficiency based on
visual cues. So syntax highlighting, which is not WYSIWYG enables
quicker scanning of text.

Again, I don't think the list would be interested in this, and I'm
unsure why you feel that my way of working must match yours to be
valid (or whatever has you all heated up). So, if only for courtesy's
sake, can we take this back-channel?

c