Seumas Mac Uilleachan
seumas at idirect.ca
Sat Mar 20 19:41:27 EDT 2010
On 20/03/10 04:02 PM, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
> * Lou Quillio<public at quillio.com> [2010-03-20 00:55]:
>> Markdown's dead? Absurd.
> Obviously. That’s why no one said that.
> Markdown *development* is dead.
> (Straw men are easy to clobber.)
>> Markdown's huge, and in the form of PHP Markdown Extra is
>> basically done. Done != dead, done == problem solved.
> Fact: the latest Gruber release is a beta.
And has been for how many years now? The original markdown has not
changed in years. That may be a good thing if it is stable, has no bugs
or edge cases, does exactly what it advertises every time, etc etc.
But it does not, witness the constant threads on this mailing list about
edge cases, missing features, etc etc.
Which leads me at least to presume that it is an orphaned software. It
would certainly not be alone.
I hear constantly about needing "Gruber's blessing" for any overhaul or
changes to Markdown. Why? It seems obvious to me that he has lost
interest in further development. Markdown was developed to meet a
requirement he had and I guess the current state is good enough for him.
That is absolutely fine and I have no problem with that. If it isn't
good enough for everyone else (or at least those who are active on this
list) then carry on with development, call it MD2.0 or "Webtext Lite" or
whatever you like and just run with it.
> Fact: the latest official Gruber release is missing features
> that Gruber himself uses.
> You can argue about whether this means “done” – I see “scratches
> my itch so I lost interest” –, but you cannot argue the facts.
> Personally I think Markdown is still missing a lot of fit and
> polish that could make it much (subtly) nicer still. (Eg. I’m
> tired of using `<!-- -->` lines as a crutch to force consecutive,
> separate blockquotes and lists to be recognised as such.)
> What it’s not missing is big constructs. (I believe tables and
> definition lists can only be done badly, and so should not be
> done at all.)
The goal of markdown is readability. There is no such thing as a
readable html table. I would argue that tables are a useful enough
feature to include. Whether it is done badly or well is often
subjective. At the minimum a simple table format would be important to
me (not requiring spanning cells or complex table layouts). Tables are
the easiest way to list corresponding values or data that they really
should be somehow included.
I do like the way PHP Markdown Extra does tables. Unfortunately I don't
use PHP anymore.
More information about the Markdown-Discuss