in reply to Markdown syntax useful to the Monastery?

I'll have to be one of the first to oppose the idea. Looking at the syntax for the system, it just looks plain ugly to me. There are times I wish to use asterisks in regular text; if those start being translated into emphasis tags, I will be disappointed. Plus, what kind of syntax is [my homenode](/?node_id=340501) for linking? [saskaqueer|my homenode] beats that out anyday (it also beats out [my homenode](saskaqueer) if it would be possible to get it working as such).

How hard is it to remember <p> tags for paragraphs? I can't stand forums that autoformat text for you (ie: one RETURN key equals one <br /> tag). It's even worse when they combine html with autoformating -- where you wind up with huge gaps of space between paragraphs if you use <p> tags and separate blocks with newlines (as I do here on pm).

Things work very well here; a lot of work has gone into making perlmonks's formatting/coding specs work as well as they do. Don't mess with them. Of course, if this madness should make it through, I have high hopes that this Markdown system would of course not be turned on by default and would only be accessible via an option in user settings. But of course, my ability to see into the future has shown me that I have nothing to worry about :)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Markdown syntax useful to the Monestary?
by radiantmatrix (Parson) on Oct 28, 2005 at 19:04 UTC

    If this were implemented as I envision, then you wouldn't have to use the markdown methodology, you could just use the monastic style. AFAICT, Markdown parsing ignores something that's just in square brackets, so it would leave [radiantmatrix] and [cpan://strict] type links intact, to be processed by the monastic style. Only if it sees a string matching [.+](.+) (or, incidently, [.+][\d+] does it bother to process it.

    Again, what I proposed is an implementation that no one would notice if they just used the current monastic style of markup.

    After considering a couple of the comments here, I realize that some of the auto-formatting things would have to either be more intelligent or controlled through some sort of preference.

    As for intelligence, it would be easy enough to turn specific Markdown items off when it makes sense: two line breaks followed immediately by container-type HTML tags would *not* be parsed as a new Markdown paragraph. If it sees italics, emphasis, bold, strong tags, assume all asterisks are literal. Use literal asterisks if it sees something like "great idea*" without a matching /\*\w/ somewhere before it in the paragraph. Etc. Most of this would be trivial, the rest would be mostly easy (though I'm sure there would be a few difficulties).

    As for the option, I'd place a per-post checkbox for 'use Markdown syntax'; checking it would resolve conflicts between monastic markup and Markdown in favor of Markdown. When unchecked, all Markdown would be ignored. The default state of this checkbox would be controlled in user preferences.

    I also don't like excessive autoformatting of text. I do like making some interpolation available so that I can concentrate on my content, and not whether or not I've remembered to break my paragraphs or wrap quotations of other people in blockquote tags (Markdown lets you prepend the paragraph with a single '> ' to deal with it.

    I also feel bad for new posters that don't understand why all of their paragraph breaks (in the form of a double newline) disappear when they post, and they get chastised for it. Giving them an option that automatically deals with simple things like that is, I think, valuable.

    Does any of that make you more comfortable with the idea?

    A collection of thoughts and links from the minds of geeks
    The Code that can be seen is not the true Code
    "In any sufficiently large group of people, most are idiots" - Kaa's Law