I think the syntax rules regarding raw html [1] shed some light on this issue:
> Markdown is not a replacement for HTML, or even close > to it. Its syntax is very small, corresponding only to a very > small subset of HTML tags. The idea is not to create a > syntax that makes it easier to insert HTML tags. In my > opinion, HTML tags are already easy to insert. The idea > for Markdown is to make it easy to read, write, and edit > prose. HTML is a publishing format; Markdown is a writing > format. Thus, Markdown’s formatting syntax only addresses > issues that can be conveyed in plain text. > > For any markup that is not covered by Markdown’s syntax, > you simply use HTML itself. There’s no need to preface it > or delimit it to indicate that you’re switching from Markdown > to HTML; you just use the tags. In other words, if you want a *publishing* format, use raw HTML. If you want to wrap some text in a div to add styling hooks, fine. But if you want to format the contents of that div, then use HTML for that also. After all, "Markdown is not a replacement for HTML." Yes, some markdown implementations have added some optional extras, but those extras generally fit into the philosophy quoted above (see definition lists). That said, I have seen some pretty horrid requests for extending the syntax as the maintainer of the Python-Markdown project (which has an extensive API for writing extensions). While I agree that user defined extensions are an appropriate way to go, one should always be careful when introducing new syntax. John MacFarlane's FAQ [2] is evidence of that. [1]: http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax#html [2]: http://johnmacfarlane.net/babelmark2/faq.html -- ---- \X/ /-\ `/ |_ /-\ |\| Waylan Limberg _______________________________________________ Markdown-Discuss mailing list Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
