2011/8/14 Michel Fortin <michel.for...@michelf.com>: > That's true only to a degree. If for instance you put add features so users > can write however-they-want complex tables, they're going to be part of the > table syntax, and users reading the table syntax will have much more to > decipher. Of course you can write a dumbed down syntax specification for > those users, but this has consequences too. Knowing that you know the > complete Markdown syntax makes you comfortable; knowing there's many things > you don't know about the syntax makes you more cautious. > > Compare Microsoft WordPad to Microsoft Word, or TextEdit to Pages in Apple's > land: one of them is more intimidating than the other, for good reasons, even > if at their core they are the same. Less is more, at least it is until you > need more. > > So I think the more features we add, the more intimidating Markdown becomes > to the new users. What should we do, I'm not sure actually. >
Of couse Markdown shouldn't support every little sophisticated feature, that some people want. To stay at the example of tables: line-styles, double-lines, and so on shouldn't be part of Markdown. Only normal lines. But if I take a look at MultiMarkdown, this has basic support for tables, that don't give you every little design-feature, but enough to share information, that needs to presented in tables. That would be enough to me. Markdown is no design-language, but a (lightweight) markup-language. So you e.g. don't need line-styles at tables, but it should be possible to make simple tables, because some information needs that representation. Your other point is true (a little bit in my opinion): if somebody only learns the basic features, because he/she doesn't use the advanced features, he has to face these other syntax if he sees another Markdown-document that uses this syntax and isn't rendered to HTML, PDF, or whatever else. But: 1. even the advanced syntax isn't hard to read. E.g. (again I stay at the example of tables): maybe the reader doesn't know why there are two | at the end of a combined cell, but he can read what is in the cells and he sees it is a table. He can edit the rest of the document and even the text in the cells. 2. and beyond that, there is another important point: to say somebody may not use an important feature like tables, so that everybody can read every document wouldn't be very good. That reminds me a bit of something, another person said to me some months ago. This person said "Most people speak english. Why do people still publish in other languages on the internet." But I know dozens of reasons for that. Should people are prevented from publishing information only because somebody else maybe can't read it? My opinion is: the author should know what he uses and what syntax the others that work on a document know. Otherwise we also have to ban # for headlines, because there are certainly people who don't know that is a headline. What is the other way? Leaving information that needs a table? Conclusion: There are some elements of texts, that many people need. E.g. tables, footnotes, citations, images, definition lists... In my opinion why shouldn't say other people what kind of texts they are allowed to write and what other not. Maybe a scientist who uses footnotes, knows that everybody in his workgroup knows about how to use footnotes. And if somebody else reads his document I think the use of footnotes and tables is the slightest problem. ;) And maybe you even don't want to share your Markdown-document with others or collaborate on a text. Maybe you just want to publish it in your blog, print it out, make a PDF of it, and so on. In this case you can use what you want without questioning who knows this syntax, because they only see the rendered document. Of course all this advanced syntax only should support basic things you really need for texts and no sophisticated design-extras. E.g. you need tables for representing some information, but you don't really need different line-styles. And of course this advanced syntax should be kept as clear as possible. E.g. like the tables in MultiMarkdown: even if I don't know how to make tables yet, I see it is a table. And even if I don't know every detail, I can read and edit the text in the cells. And the rest of the document anyhow. I still have other things in mind, why advanced syntax should be standard and why this is no problem for less advanced users, but my english isn't that good and I think I've written enough. Of course there is one point remaining: MultiMarkdows has most of the things that are useful. Why not let it in today's way: some people use Markdown, other MultiMarkdown, others Markdown Extra or whatever Markdown-version else. But that's the question of standards again. It's very confusing (esp. to new users) what version of Markdown you use and what special syntax is possible or isn't possible. I hope, it's clear what I mean, my english wasn't too bad and my posting wasn't too long. But I really think one standard-markdown with the extended syntax of MultiMarkdown would be a big win for Markdown and could spread it to more people and convince them, that for many purposes lightweight markup is the better way to write a text, a webpage, a blog,... _______________________________________________ Markdown-Discuss mailing list Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss