Then style picright60 as float; width 40% On Wednesday, March 5, 2014, Rob McBroom wrote: > On 5 Mar 2014, at 10:18, Jak Wings wrote: > > I'm designing my own Markdown-like language. :) I just don't know how > important it is to use inline images. What do you think? > > If you don't explicitly define a way to do it, others will make something > up. Probably multiple others with multiple somethings. > > For reference, see: Every HTML tag that isn't spit out by Markdown.pl. ;-) > > -- > Rob McBroom > http://www.skurfer.com/ > -- Sent from my phone. Spelling and grammar mistakes are the phone's fault. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. More seriously, this is an abbreviated response from away from my desk. If I don't get back to you soon, ping me again. Details can get lost. Sherwood -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jakwings at gmail.com Wed Mar 5 11:28:11 2014 From: jakwings at gmail.com (Jak Wings) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 00:28:11 +0800 Subject: How often do you use inline images?

wrapper is really useful? In-Reply-To: <92E729B9-F237-4766-9F9E-A10DEA003E90@skurfer.com> References: <50D70F29-E919-4772-9B80-9DB28EDFFFF0@gmail.com> <92E729B9-F237-4766-9F9E-A10DEA003E90@skurfer.com> Message-ID: <90AE0F00-24E3-4393-8235-1438FBAE8865@gmail.com> On 5 Mar 2014, at 10:50, Rob McBroom wrote: > If you don?t explicitly define a way to do it, others will make something up. Probably multiple others with multiple somethings. > > For reference, see: Every HTML tag that isn?t spit out by Markdown.pl. ;-) > Thanks, Rob. Maybe I should use raw HTML and parse the HTML block. I have extended the syntax of GFM?s fenced code block. ~~~ ** ![alt](url ?title?) ~~~ The double asterisk ?**? above denotes raw HTML that will be parsed. (single asterisk ?*? just denotes simple raw HTML) Best regards, Jak Wings -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jakwings at gmail.com Wed Mar 5 12:19:08 2014 From: jakwings at gmail.com (Jak Wings) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 01:19:08 +0800 Subject: How often do you use inline images?

wrapper is really useful? In-Reply-To: <53174E86.60002@fletcherpenney.net> References: <50D70F29-E919-4772-9B80-9DB28EDFFFF0@gmail.com> <53174E86.60002@fletcherpenney.net> Message-ID: <79BD754D-58B4-4CBD-A4D8-5FA2A1DD50A2@gmail.com> Good idea. I have never thought of it. But it is a new element of HTML5, I have a little worry about it. I am not able provide a XHTML mode for it. Best regards, Jak Wings On 3/5/14, 11:19 AM, Fletcher T. Penney wrote: > Do you mean inline images vs

's? > > In MultiMarkdown, I started with no changes to Markdown's image > approach, but eventually added a feature that an image by itself as a > paragraph would be a

rather than an inline image type. > > I have not surveyed users to see which is used more commonly, but I do > get a fair number of questions related to , and very few > related to inline images. > > > Fletcher > > > On 3/5/14, 10:18 AM, Jak Wings wrote: >> I?m designing my own Markdown-like language. :) I just don?t know how important it is to use inline images. What do you think? >> >> Best regards, >> Jak Wings >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Markdown-Discuss mailing list >> Markdown-Discuss at six.pairlist.net >> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss >> > > -- > Fletcher T. Penney > fletcher at fletcherpenney.net > _______________________________________________ > Markdown-Discuss mailing list > Markdown-Discuss at six.pairlist.net > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss From tomasbrod at azet.sk Thu Mar 6 12:59:48 2014 From: tomasbrod at azet.sk (Tomas Brod) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 18:59:48 +0100 Subject: How often do you use inline images?

wrapper is really useful? In-Reply-To: <50D70F29-E919-4772-9B80-9DB28EDFFFF0@gmail.com> References: <50D70F29-E919-4772-9B80-9DB28EDFFFF0@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20140306175948.GD18026@azet.sk> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hello. > I?m designing my own Markdown-like language. :) I already implemented single-function Markdown parser in PHP! Limited to: paragraphs, [links](.htm), *emphasis*, - disordered and ordered lists. I support images by special [FIGURE](.png) construct at the beginning of paragraph. Ask if you are interested. I just did not have time to publish. - -- Sent with Mutt MUA, composed in Nano. Eweryone can read unencrypted messages. Use GPG. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Toto je digit?lne (PGP) za?ifrovan?/podp?san? spr?va. Comment: http://www.gpg4win.org/doc/en/gpg4win-compendium.html iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJTGLeUAAoJEMdO67lGlzZ9vhkIAK/JDhgFV0NLV8duBqFCWjal t7/vj+H8YlUoZoPVioWDXT7p5PGTk58tmk4IlIlRqeiTXSvE4I8kemgHSMM0HYTb XlWBOTdwV7moY0oVbjq0FbCRJJsPSc+1nMZjf6cgSNa4Z9+UpYNvvZocVI3u10Np FPnprsKOGuDekCNzpYUSJKmIVWUg4KCYpiszqn11Dqx/c/5+gEZxTm7hQToplwEs RpPGL6Weg3fVig/mGJUTPw+P/A0mHtY1WZHJFjPUdQiMwILNaqdWhjEiV/vqZ+Q5 GAE/uPiCOQWjJpZJKV4bQ+ZaIjEXd1qkxZRH+luuUZmVZdZ1cMrtMRMXxI/aHP4= =hHhT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From contact at alanhogan.com Thu Mar 6 14:57:15 2014 From: contact at alanhogan.com (Alan Hogan) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 11:57:15 -0800 Subject: How often do you use inline images?

wrapper is really useful? In-Reply-To: <79BD754D-58B4-4CBD-A4D8-5FA2A1DD50A2@gmail.com> References: <50D70F29-E919-4772-9B80-9DB28EDFFFF0@gmail.com> <53174E86.60002@fletcherpenney.net> <79BD754D-58B4-4CBD-A4D8-5FA2A1DD50A2@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0D1AE0AB-9CB5-4896-B18F-88CA0A08BEFE@alanhogan.com> People still care about XHTML validation? HTML5 has done a much better job of unifying behavior across clients and tools everywhere. But maybe I misunderstand your point. Alan > On Mar 5, 2014, at 9:19 AM, Jak Wings wrote: > > Good idea. I have never thought of it. But it is a new element of HTML5, I have a little worry about it. I am not able provide a XHTML mode for it. > > Best regards, > Jak Wings > >> On 3/5/14, 11:19 AM, Fletcher T. Penney wrote: >> >> Do you mean inline images vs

's? >> >> In MultiMarkdown, I started with no changes to Markdown's image >> approach, but eventually added a feature that an image by itself as a >> paragraph would be a

rather than an inline image type. >> >> I have not surveyed users to see which is used more commonly, but I do >> get a fair number of questions related to , and very few >> related to inline images. >> >> >> Fletcher >> >> >>> On 3/5/14, 10:18 AM, Jak Wings wrote: >>> I?m designing my own Markdown-like language. :) I just don?t know how important it is to use inline images. What do you think? >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Jak Wings >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Markdown-Discuss mailing list >>> Markdown-Discuss at six.pairlist.net >>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss >> >> -- >> Fletcher T. Penney >> fletcher at fletcherpenney.net >> _______________________________________________ >> Markdown-Discuss mailing list >> Markdown-Discuss at six.pairlist.net >> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Markdown-Discuss mailing list > Markdown-Discuss at six.pairlist.net > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss From deirdre at deirdre.net Thu Mar 6 15:11:50 2014 From: deirdre at deirdre.net (Deirdre Saoirse Moen) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 12:11:50 -0800 Subject: How often do you use inline images?

wrapper is really useful? In-Reply-To: <0D1AE0AB-9CB5-4896-B18F-88CA0A08BEFE@alanhogan.com> References: <50D70F29-E919-4772-9B80-9DB28EDFFFF0@gmail.com> <53174E86.60002@fletcherpenney.net> <79BD754D-58B4-4CBD-A4D8-5FA2A1DD50A2@gmail.com> <0D1AE0AB-9CB5-4896-B18F-88CA0A08BEFE@alanhogan.com> Message-ID: EPUBs need to be valid XHTML, so it's still relevant. Deirdre > On Mar 6, 2014, at 11:57 AM, Alan Hogan wrote: > > People still care about XHTML validation? HTML5 has done a much better job of unifying behavior across clients and tools everywhere. > > But maybe I misunderstand your point. > > Alan > >> On Mar 5, 2014, at 9:19 AM, Jak Wings wrote: >> >> Good idea. I have never thought of it. But it is a new element of HTML5, I have a little worry about it. I am not able provide a XHTML mode for it. >> >> Best regards, >> Jak Wings >> >>> On 3/5/14, 11:19 AM, Fletcher T. Penney wrote: >>> >>> Do you mean inline images vs

's? >>> >>> In MultiMarkdown, I started with no changes to Markdown's image >>> approach, but eventually added a feature that an image by itself as a >>> paragraph would be a

rather than an inline image type. >>> >>> I have not surveyed users to see which is used more commonly, but I do >>> get a fair number of questions related to , and very few >>> related to inline images. >>> >>> >>> Fletcher >>> >>> >>>> On 3/5/14, 10:18 AM, Jak Wings wrote: >>>> I?m designing my own Markdown-like language. :) I just don?t know how important it is to use inline images. What do you think? >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Jak Wings >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Markdown-Discuss mailing list >>>> Markdown-Discuss at six.pairlist.net >>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss >>> >>> -- >>> Fletcher T. Penney >>> fletcher at fletcherpenney.net >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Markdown-Discuss mailing list >>> Markdown-Discuss at six.pairlist.net >>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Markdown-Discuss mailing list >> Markdown-Discuss at six.pairlist.net >> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss > _______________________________________________ > Markdown-Discuss mailing list > Markdown-Discuss at six.pairlist.net > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss From shane at aptest.com Thu Mar 6 15:19:20 2014 From: shane at aptest.com (Shane McCarron) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 14:19:20 -0600 Subject: How often do you use inline images?

's? > >>> > >>> In MultiMarkdown, I started with no changes to Markdown's image > >>> approach, but eventually added a feature that an image by itself as a > >>> paragraph would be a

rather than an inline image type. > >>> > >>> I have not surveyed users to see which is used more commonly, but I do > >>> get a fair number of questions related to , and very few > >>> related to inline images. > >>> > >>> > >>> Fletcher > >>> > >>> > >>>> On 3/5/14, 10:18 AM, Jak Wings wrote: > >>>> I'm designing my own Markdown-like language. :) I just don't know how > important it is to use inline images. What do you think? > >>>> > >>>> Best regards, > >>>> Jak Wings > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Markdown-Discuss mailing list > >>>> Markdown-Discuss at six.pairlist.net > >>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Fletcher T. Penney > >>> fletcher at fletcherpenney.net > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Markdown-Discuss mailing list > >>> Markdown-Discuss at six.pairlist.net > >>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Markdown-Discuss mailing list > >> Markdown-Discuss at six.pairlist.net > >> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > > Markdown-Discuss mailing list > > Markdown-Discuss at six.pairlist.net > > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss > _______________________________________________ > Markdown-Discuss mailing list > Markdown-Discuss at six.pairlist.net > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deirdre at deirdre.net Thu Mar 6 15:21:44 2014 From: deirdre at deirdre.net (Deirdre Saoirse Moen) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 12:21:44 -0800 Subject: How often do you use inline images?

wrapper is really useful? In-Reply-To: <1C0AA07D-B164-4E8C-970E-B132E5415C23@deirdre.net> References: <50D70F29-E919-4772-9B80-9DB28EDFFFF0@gmail.com> <53174E86.60002@fletcherpenney.net> <79BD754D-58B4-4CBD-A4D8-5FA2A1DD50A2@gmail.com> <0D1AE0AB-9CB5-4896-B18F-88CA0A08BEFE@alanhogan.com> <1C0AA07D-B164-4E8C-970E-B132E5415C23@deirdre.net> Message-ID: <1715F8DA-1B15-4BD7-BE69-1539DA926B40@alanhogan.com> Thank you all for the replies. I hadn't realized that XHTML was so important for e-book publishing. Alan > On Mar 6, 2014, at 12:21 PM, Deirdre Saoirse Moen wrote: > > I should add to my point that the primary reason I use Markdown is for writing prose that will be converted into EPUB or XML. > > Back before EPUB became a thing, I used XML/XSLT to massage it into PDF/RTF for submission. These days, it's about EPUB for publication, mostly (though I still use the other for some pieces). > >> On Mar 6, 2014, at 12:11 PM, Deirdre Saoirse Moen wrote: >> >> EPUBs need to be valid XHTML, so it's still relevant. > > Deirdre > @deirdresm > http://deirdre.net > > _______________________________________________ > Markdown-Discuss mailing list > Markdown-Discuss at six.pairlist.net > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss From cuyfalls at hotmail.com Thu Mar 6 15:59:58 2014 From: cuyfalls at hotmail.com (Virgil Arrington) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 15:59:58 -0500 Subject: How often do you use inline images?

wrapper is really useful? In-Reply-To: <1C0AA07D-B164-4E8C-970E-B132E5415C23@deirdre.net> References: <50D70F29-E919-4772-9B80-9DB28EDFFFF0@gmail.com> <53174E86.60002@fletcherpenney.net> <79BD754D-58B4-4CBD-A4D8-5FA2A1DD50A2@gmail.com> <0D1AE0AB-9CB5-4896-B18F-88CA0A08BEFE@alanhogan.com> <1C0AA07D-B164-4E8C-970E-B132E5415C23@deirdre.net> Message-ID: Deirdre, Just curious. What did you use to "massage" XML into PDF/RTF? Virgil On 3/6/2014 3:21 PM, Deirdre Saoirse Moen wrote: > I should add to my point that the primary reason I use Markdown is for writing prose that will be converted into EPUB or XML. > > Back before EPUB became a thing, I used XML/XSLT to massage it into PDF/RTF for submission. These days, it's about EPUB for publication, mostly (though I still use the other for some pieces). > > On Mar 6, 2014, at 12:11 PM, Deirdre Saoirse Moen wrote: > >> EPUBs need to be valid XHTML, so it's still relevant. > Deirdre > @deirdresm > http://deirdre.net > > _______________________________________________ > Markdown-Discuss mailing list > Markdown-Discuss at six.pairlist.net > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss From bowerbird at aol.com Thu Mar 6 20:39:06 2014 From: bowerbird at aol.com (bowerbird) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 20:39:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: How often do you use inline images?

wrapper is really useful? Message-ID: <8D107BD29482167-3580-111FC@webmail-d205.sysops.aol.com> alan said: > I hadn't realized that XHTML was so important for e-book publishing. the corporate publishers have tried to sabotage e-books since the early days, so xhtml was meant to raise the difficulty-level, one of many choices made to discourage self-publishers from disrupting the space and disintermediating the gate-keepers... as for validation, it's required by the online e-bookstores (except when they choose to make exceptions for their own convenience), but most of the viewer-programs don't enforce validation strictly... of course, none of the viewer-programs do _anything_ consistently -- including simple rendering of content in the manner specified -- so you might run into the occasional exception on this issue, sadly. meanwhile, sensible people are formulating more sensible criteria, so when the dinosaurs go extinct, we'll leave that nonsense behind. -bowerbird From deirdre at deirdre.net Thu Mar 6 21:25:31 2014 From: deirdre at deirdre.net (Deirdre Saoirse Moen) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 18:25:31 -0800 Subject: How often do you use inline images?

wrapper is really useful? In-Reply-To: References: <50D70F29-E919-4772-9B80-9DB28EDFFFF0@gmail.com> <53174E86.60002@fletcherpenney.net> <79BD754D-58B4-4CBD-A4D8-5FA2A1DD50A2@gmail.com> <0D1AE0AB-9CB5-4896-B18F-88CA0A08BEFE@alanhogan.com> <1C0AA07D-B164-4E8C-970E-B132E5415C23@deirdre.net> Message-ID: <297786A3-139A-42D3-9200-00B79E5003F0@deirdre.net> I was using: XSL-FO + FOP http://deirdre.net/making-book-a-technological-evolution/ Nowadays, you can do it at the command line on a Mac, though, so no more Java toolchain bits. (And there was much rejoicing!) man textutil On Mar 6, 2014, at 12:59 PM, Virgil Arrington wrote: > Deirdre, > > Just curious. What did you use to "massage" XML into PDF/RTF? > > Virgil > > On 3/6/2014 3:21 PM, Deirdre Saoirse Moen wrote: >> I should add to my point that the primary reason I use Markdown is for writing prose that will be converted into EPUB or XML. >> >> Back before EPUB became a thing, I used XML/XSLT to massage it into PDF/RTF for submission. These days, it's about EPUB for publication, mostly (though I still use the other for some pieces). >> >> On Mar 6, 2014, at 12:11 PM, Deirdre Saoirse Moen wrote: >> >>> EPUBs need to be valid XHTML, so it's still relevant. >> Deirdre >> @deirdresm >> http://deirdre.net >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Markdown-Discuss mailing list >> Markdown-Discuss at six.pairlist.net >> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Markdown-Discuss mailing list > Markdown-Discuss at six.pairlist.net > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss Deirdre @deirdresm http://deirdre.net From bowerbird at aol.com Thu Mar 6 22:16:24 2014 From: bowerbird at aol.com (bowerbird) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 22:16:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: How often do you use inline images?

wrapper is really useful? In-Reply-To: <8D107BD29482167-3580-111FC@webmail-d205.sysops.aol.com> References: <8D107BD29482167-3580-111FC@webmail-d205.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <8D107CAC1376461-16C0-1096F@webmail-vm014.sysops.aol.com> deidre said: > XSL-FO + FOP > http://deirdre.net/making-book-a-technological-evolution/ interesting. > Nowadays, you can do it at the command line on a Mac nowadays, markdown input to multiple e-book output formats is basically a one-click process, and involves no terminal use. i'm actively developing in this arena, if anyone wants information. -bowerbird p.s. and if you want to sell your e-books, there's always leanpub, as well as softcover.io, a brand-new entrant on the e-book scene. p.p.s. the coolest markdown-related shit out today is strapdownjs. From tom at maynard.com Fri Mar 7 11:09:02 2014 From: tom at maynard.com (=?utf-8?Q?Tom_Maynard?=) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 16:09:02 +0000 Subject: =?utf-8?Q?Re:_How_often_do_you_use_inline_images=3F_

_wrapper_is_really?= =?utf-8?Q?_useful=3F?= In-Reply-To: <8D107CAC1376461-16C0-1096F@webmail-vm014.sysops.aol.com> References: <8D107BD29482167-3580-111FC@webmail-d205.sysops.aol.com>, <8D107CAC1376461-16C0-1096F@webmail-vm014.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <20140307161614.D0CBB65@six.pairlist.net> bowerbird at aol.com, markdown-discuss at six.pairlist.net said: > i'm actively developing in this arena, if anyone wants information. I definitely do! Tell me more ? or point me at it, or something. > p.p.s. the coolest markdown-related shit out today is strapdownjs. As always, bowerbird, you have found a golden nugget amidst the slag of the Internet. StrapdownJS (for those unafraid of the CapsKey ??) is just mind-boggling. I became an instant adopter. Thanks for your insight (as always). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nancy at birnes.com Fri Mar 7 12:04:40 2014 From: nancy at birnes.com (Nancy Hayfield Birnes) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 12:04:40 -0500 Subject: How often do you use inline images?

wrapper is really useful? In-Reply-To: <531A1537.1030809@maliayas.com> References: <8D107BD29482167-3580-111FC@webmail-d205.sysops.aol.com> <8D107CAC1376461-16C0-1096F@webmail-vm014.sysops.aol.com> <531A1537.1030809@maliayas.com> Message-ID: <531A1D4E.2070503@maynard.com> On 07-Mar-14 12:51, Ali Ayas wrote: > > p.p.s. the coolest markdown-related shit out today is strapdownjs. > > One step ahead is probably browser adoption. A firefox extension for > this: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/markdown-viewer/ > A similar tool for Google Chrome is Markdown Preview Plus (an alternative implementation is Markdown Reader , although there are others). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bowerbird at aol.com Fri Mar 7 15:32:48 2014 From: bowerbird at aol.com (bowerbird) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 15:32:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: How often do you use inline images?

wrapper is really useful? In-Reply-To: <8D107CAC1376461-16C0-1096F@webmail-vm014.sysops.aol.com> References: <8D107BD29482167-3580-111FC@webmail-d205.sysops.aol.com> <8D107CAC1376461-16C0-1096F@webmail-vm014.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <8D1085B89EDF94D-16C0-1779E@webmail-vm014.sysops.aol.com> tom said: > I definitely do! Tell me more ? > or point me at it, or something. my stuff is in a bit of a jumble right now. probably best to e-mail me, and tell me exactly what your interests are, so i can point you to the piece of my puzzle that will be of the greatest interest to you now. a big cut is if you wanna do development or just use some system to make e-books. i'm streamlining a process to explain it all, and will have it within the next few weeks, so if you'd prefer to wait for that, that's fine. but i'm more than willing to help people now, if you wanna get started right away; e-mail me. nancy said: > Softcover looks like a dream-come-true. I hope. > Hope springs eternal, I think, as I finally > open up the terminal window. Sounds drastic. do please note that softcover.io is a newcomer now. if you want the proven player, choose leanup.com. *** tom said: > StrapdownJS (for those unafraid of the CapsKey) > is just mind-boggling. I became an instant adopter. > Thanks for your insight (as always). strapdown _is_ mind-boggling. moreover, it's one of those things that is mind-boggling precisely because it is _not_ mind-boggling, but instead is quite straightforward, easy, and obvious. in retrospect. of course, in retrospect, _everything_ is obvious. but yeah, i've been talking about serving light-markup (rather than .html), and having the client-end convert it for several years now, including here in these archives. *** ali said: > One step ahead is probably browser adoption. > A firefox extension for this: > https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/markdown-viewer/ well, yeah, having the browser-makers do this "voluntarily" would be the best way to proceed, because that would give the methodology reach and legitimacy, plus ensure its future. and it's indeed what i have wished for in the past, because -- weighed against the bloatware that browsers are today -- including the 20k-40k of code for a conversion routine is tiny. and it'd solve the chicken/egg problem that nobody wants to serve light-markup if the browser will not convert it, but they won't put in a converter if nobody serves light-markup. my thought: "if you would convert it, they would serve it." but i think the browser-makers are reluctant to include such a light-markup conversion routine themselves, because they don't want to suffer the backlash from users who'd then realize that much of the .html pain which has been heaped on us was _totally_unnecessary_ and could have been _easily_avoided_. "you mean we could have been serving light-markup all along? well, gee, thanks for not telling us that, you sadistic bastards." i mean, seriously, it's some kind of sick joke that we're forcing humans to mark up text "for the computer", when the machine can do mark-up a _lot_ faster and more efficiently than we can. the machine is supposed to work for us, not make work for us. but even once they _do_ finally decide to include a converter, browser-makers have shown they move agonizingly slowly... no matter... because now that we've become comfortable with javascript (albeit fairly uneasy and queasy, for many very good reasons), we can include a conversion routine ourselves, along with our light-markup original file, and have the client-machine run it... so... how does that javascript-converter-bundled-with-light-markup approach differ from the firefox extension "markdown-viewer"? well, in a few small ways, that end up being extremely important. first off, you'll notice that i've been saying "light-markup", and _not_ "markdown". well... there's a very good reason for that. and it boils down to the 3 million different flavors of markdown. the nightmare is that the flavor of markdown which i am serving is _not_ the same flavor that you have in your viewer-extension. so the rendering is flawed, in ways neither you nor i might know. and another nightmare is that there are 87 different extensions, and they all use different flavors, so i'm now in a no-win position, and thus no matter what flavor i serve, it'll crap out for someone. (no sooner do i write this than tom points to other extensions. yes, there are many of them out there, with more on the way.) and note that this scenario will also hold if the browser-makers include converter-routines themselves, but use different flavors; that would be the absolute worst-case version of this nightmare. as long as you are using markdown as your light-markup format, the obvious resolution of this nightmare is to serve the converter you've tested with, and thus _know_ treats your input correctly... hopefully, when the world decides to go "all-in" on light-markup, we will discard markdown and choose a non-fragmented format. (i would rather say "naturally" than "hopefully", but, regrettably, we rarely do the right thing when we make this kind of decision.) -bowerbird From jakwings at gmail.com Tue Mar 11 16:40:50 2014 From: jakwings at gmail.com (Jak Wings) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 04:40:50 +0800 Subject: Strictdown -- My Markdown-like markup language for writing HTML documents Message-ID: <1B9C91F3-8B10-4582-936E-763D30CB97F7@gmail.com> Hi, everybody: I have finally finished the design of my markup language Strictdown and its converter written in JavaScript. :) I hope you will like it! Any feedback is welcome. GitHub: https://github.com/jakwings/strictdown Quick reference: http://jakwings.github.io/strictdown/QuickReference.html Best regards, Jak Wings -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 801 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail Url : From dc at davidchambers.me Tue Mar 11 16:49:07 2014 From: dc at davidchambers.me (David Chambers) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 13:49:07 -0700 Subject: Strictdown -- My Markdown-like markup language for writing HTML documents In-Reply-To: <1B9C91F3-8B10-4582-936E-763D30CB97F7@gmail.com> References: <1B9C91F3-8B10-4582-936E-763D30CB97F7@gmail.com> Message-ID: I suggest adding a "Differences from Markdown" section to the document. On 11 March 2014 13:40, Jak Wings wrote: > Hi, everybody: > > I have finally finished the design of my markup language Strictdown and > its converter written in JavaScript. :) > > I hope you will like it! Any feedback is welcome. > GitHub: https://github.com/jakwings/strictdown > Quick reference: http://jakwings.github.io/strictdown/QuickReference.html > > Best regards, > Jak Wings > > _______________________________________________ > Markdown-Discuss mailing list > Markdown-Discuss at six.pairlist.net > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jakwings at gmail.com Tue Mar 11 16:53:29 2014 From: jakwings at gmail.com (Jak Wings) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 04:53:29 +0800 Subject: Strictdown -- My Markdown-like markup language for writing HTML documents In-Reply-To: References: <1B9C91F3-8B10-4582-936E-763D30CB97F7@gmail.com> Message-ID: <32E60639-162F-4C20-8997-AE48ED84AB41@gmail.com> Thanks, David. I will add it soon. Best regards, Jak Wings On 2014-3-12 04:49+0800, David Chambers wrote: > I suggest adding a "Differences from Markdown" section to the document. > > > On 11 March 2014 13:40, Jak Wings wrote: > Hi, everybody: > > I have finally finished the design of my markup language Strictdown and its converter written in JavaScript. :) > > I hope you will like it! Any feedback is welcome. > GitHub: https://github.com/jakwings/strictdown > Quick reference: http://jakwings.github.io/strictdown/QuickReference.html > > Best regards, > Jak Wings > > _______________________________________________ > Markdown-Discuss mailing list > Markdown-Discuss at six.pairlist.net > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > Markdown-Discuss mailing list > Markdown-Discuss at six.pairlist.net > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tom at maynard.com Wed Mar 26 13:25:03 2014 From: tom at maynard.com (Tom Maynard) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 12:25:03 -0500 Subject: Links in Code Blocks Message-ID: <53330D6F.3030306@maynard.com> Is it possible to have a live hyperlink *inside* a \`\`\`Code Block\`\`\`? Something like: ```markdown This code block contains an embedded [hyperlink](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink). Is it possible to render it as an active link instead of source? ``` I realize that Markdown support already exists, but it doesn't work. And, I also realize that what I'm asking for is diametrically opposed to what a Code Block is meant to be (even one with syntax highlighting. It's a "WYSIWYG" functionality, and I'm trying to circumvent it (at least partially). Is there a way? From jakwings at gmail.com Wed Mar 26 13:41:51 2014 From: jakwings at gmail.com (Jak Wings) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 01:41:51 +0800 Subject: Links in Code Blocks In-Reply-To: <53330D6F.3030306@maynard.com> References: <53330D6F.3030306@maynard.com> Message-ID: Fenced code block is not in vanilla Markdown. "kramdown" can let you write this way:

This code block contains an embedded [hyperlink](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink).

It is really unusual to have links inside code block (which should be kept as is). So you'd better use raw HTML code instead of mixing them up.

This code block contains an embedded hyperlink.

On 2014-03-27, at 01:25+08:00, Tom Maynard wrote: > Is it possible to have a live hyperlink *inside* a \`\`\`Code Block\`\`\`? Something like: > ```markdown > This code block contains an embedded [hyperlink](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink). Is it possible to render it as an active link instead of source? > ``` > I realize that Markdown support already exists, but it doesn't work. And, I also realize that what I'm asking for is diametrically opposed to what a Code Block is meant to be (even one with syntax highlighting. It's a "WYSIWYG" functionality, and I'm trying to circumvent it (at least partially). > > Is there a way? > > _______________________________________________ > Markdown-Discuss mailing list > Markdown-Discuss at six.pairlist.net > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss From contact at alanhogan.com Wed Mar 26 14:22:15 2014 From: contact at alanhogan.com (Alan Hogan) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 11:22:15 -0700 Subject: Links in Code Blocks In-Reply-To: <53330D6F.3030306@maynard.com> References: <53330D6F.3030306@maynard.com> Message-ID: This will never be a feature, as half the point of a code block, in Markdown, is to opt out of Markdown syntax recognition. I would agree, this is a job for HTML (or, perhaps, a post-Markdown linkifying script, depending on your use case). Alan > Le Mar 26, 2014 ? 10:25 AM, Tom Maynard a ?crit : > > Is it possible to have a live hyperlink *inside* a \`\`\`Code Block\`\`\`? Something like: > ```markdown > This code block contains an embedded [hyperlink](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink). Is it possible to render it as an active link instead of source? > ``` > I realize that Markdown support already exists, but it doesn't work. And, I also realize that what I'm asking for is diametrically opposed to what a Code Block is meant to be (even one with syntax highlighting. It's a "WYSIWYG" functionality, and I'm trying to circumvent it (at least partially). > > Is there a way? > > _______________________________________________ > Markdown-Discuss mailing list > Markdown-Discuss at six.pairlist.net > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss From waylan at gmail.com Wed Mar 26 17:57:31 2014 From: waylan at gmail.com (Waylan Limberg) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 17:57:31 -0400 Subject: Links in Code Blocks In-Reply-To: <53330D6F.3030306@maynard.com> References: <53330D6F.3030306@maynard.com> Message-ID: Considering that one of the features of Code Blocks is that they can be used to display markdown syntax in its original source, the answer would be no. There is no way to have markdown syntax interpreted inside a code block. This would be one of those things that you would need to do with raw HTML as others have already demonstrated. Waylan On Wednesday, March 26, 2014, Tom Maynard wrote: > Is it possible to have a live hyperlink *inside* a \`\`\`Code Block\`\`\`? > Something like: > ```markdown > This code block contains an embedded [hyperlink](http://en. > wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink). Is it possible to render it as an active > link instead of source? > ``` > I realize that Markdown support already exists, but it doesn't work. And, > I also realize that what I'm asking for is diametrically opposed to what a > Code Block is meant to be (even one with syntax highlighting. It's a > "WYSIWYG" functionality, and I'm trying to circumvent it (at least > partially). > > Is there a way? > > _______________________________________________ > Markdown-Discuss mailing list > Markdown-Discuss at six.pairlist.net > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss > -- Waylan Limberg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tom at maynard.com Wed Mar 26 20:48:20 2014 From: tom at maynard.com (Tom Maynard) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 19:48:20 -0500 Subject: Links in Code Blocks In-Reply-To: References: <53330D6F.3030306@maynard.com> Message-ID: <53337554.3000801@maynard.com> On 26-Mar-14 12:41, Jak Wings wrote: > you'd better use raw HTML code instead of mixing them up. > >

> This code block contains an embedded hyperlink.
>

On 26-Mar-14 13:22, Alan Hogan wrote: > This will never be a feature, as half the point of a code block, in Markdown, is to opt out of Markdown syntax recognition. > > I would agree, this is a job for HTML On 26-Mar-14 16:57, Waylan Limberg wrote: > one of those things that you would need to do with raw HTML Jak, Alan, /and/ Waylan: Thanks for the replies. It doesn't disappoint me, I knew before I asked that I wanted something that didn't make sense even to me ... but "ya never know," right? In fact, I hadn't even thought of simply dropping back to POH (Plain Old HTML), so I am glad that (A) I did actually ask, and (B) you all came back with the same solution. Sometimes the tip of your nose is the hardest thing to see of all. Thanks again. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: