markdown and vim

[Christian Sciberras]

Here's a deal. For the sake of argumentation, I'll stop here.

I just think talking behind people's backs is plain rude.

Of course, some people think otherwise, but who am I to judge?

While at it, I think it'd high time to leave the list, since it seems to
favour trolling rather than discussions.

Chris.










On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Chris Lott <chris at chrislott.org> wrote:


> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Christian Sciberras <uuf6429 at gmail.com>

> wrote:

> > Why should I spare it to the whole list? If some guy loves debating Steve

> > Jobs and Apples,

> > why am I not allowed to debate something inherently relevant to the list?

>

> Because it really isn't relevant to the list at this point as neither

> of us are talking about Markdown itself.

>

> > MarkDown has been, since its inception, all about SIMPLE TEXT.

> > If you "shortcuts" make you more productive, it means it has FAILED.

>

> No, it means that things I normally would have to type X characters

> (or type and click X times) to achieve can be done with fewer

> characters and/or clicks. This has nothing to do with Markdown, but it

> does have to do with the editor. It's, at least,  a matter of literal

> time.

>

> > In the end, with the shortcuts, it's like any other regular WYSIWYG, no?

> > The point behind MarkDown is exactly that, everyone can understand what

> it

> > means without highlighting, shortcuts or whatever.

>

> No, shortcuts have nothing to do with WYSIWYG, at least not as I mean

> them. And syntax highlighting, again, has nothing to do with a failure

> of Markdown. It is just the reality that the way people scan text has

> a physical property that allows for improvement in efficiency based on

> visual cues. So syntax highlighting, which is not WYSIWYG enables

> quicker scanning of text.

>

> Again, I don't think the list would be interested in this, and I'm

> unsure why you feel that my way of working must match yours to be

> valid (or whatever has you all heated up). So, if only for courtesy's

> sake, can we take this back-channel?

>

> c

> _______________________________________________

> Markdown-Discuss mailing list

> Markdown-Discuss at six.pairlist.net

> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/markdown-discuss/attachments/20111122/8890f781/attachment.html>