On Fri, 12 Feb 2010, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On Feb 12, 2010, at 19:57 , Timothy S. Nelson wrote:
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Jon Lang wrote:
John Gabriele wrote:
Personally, I've always thought that Perl has a very natural feel to
it, and deserves a doc markup format that's also natural: [Markdown]
(and [Pandoc]'s Markdown has just the right additions, IMO).
[Markdown]: http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/
[Pandoc]: http://johnmacfarlane.net/pandoc/
I definitely prefer Markdown's approach to "inline markup" over POD's
approach: e.g., _italic_ strikes me as much more legible than
I<italic>.
That's one of the things that's always annoyed me with Markdown; I
think it should be *bold*, /italic/, and _underline_.
There's a school of thought, common among printing/publishing types, that
insists that underline was intended solely to replace italics when they
couldn't be represented (i.e. no fonts, as with ASCII terminals and
printers). Thus Markdown's use of _italic_. (See also nroff.)
I'm aware of that idea, and don't use underlining myself for that
reason. But since /italic/ looks like italic, and _underline_ looks like
underline, why are we using the thing that looks like underline for italics?
I mean, sure, I'm happy to get rid of _underline_ if that's what people want,
but using _ for italic is just ... well, I don't see any sense in it.
:)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Name: Tim Nelson | Because the Creator is, |
| E-mail: wayl...@wayland.id.au | I am |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----
Version 3.12
GCS d+++ s+: a- C++$ U+++$ P+++$ L+++ E- W+ N+ w--- V-
PE(+) Y+>++ PGP->+++ R(+) !tv b++ DI++++ D G+ e++>++++ h! y-
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
