On 2017-02-16 07:42 AM, Chris Perry wrote: > > I'm a newish volunteer so perhaps I can be trusted to give a new > volunteer's opinion of Markdown. To me it's just a markup language. If > I'm writing or revising a numbered list or creating a section heading > or creating a table, etc, it makes little difference to me whether > it's in Markdown or another markup language. I don't particularly like > any markup language. I'd be able to work faster if we had a > well-designed GUI front-end that hid most of the details of the markup > language. > > It's not clear to me that Peter's proposal has significant benefits > for users of the documentation or people who want to contribute to the > documentation. In my opinion Peter has to provide very strong evidence > of significant benefits to get this approved.
Switching from a semantic documentation markup to a non-semantic unstructured set of HTML macros that has wretched support for anything other than web pages is a net negative gain. Markdown was written by coders for coders so they can appear to have something like online documentation. It's the wrong choice for something like a manual, API docs, or pretty much anything more than marketing quips or blog comments. I'm all for a consistent presentation style across Canonical-supported media and across all Ubuntu media. I don't think ex-cathedra forcing a workflow and markup switch onto actual writers is the right way to achieve that if you're trying to encourage participation and quality of content. So, agreed, I'd like to see a community-friendly discussion on the benefits of moving away from existing workflows and structure with arguments pro and contra. -- Stephen M. Webb <stephen.w...@canonical.com> -- ubuntu-translators mailing list ubuntu-translators@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-translators
