in reply to Re^2: Markdown syntax useful to the Monestary?
in thread Markdown syntax useful to the Monastery?

Thanks for the link. I admit I have little patience sometimes -- if it's not fairly obvious, I can't find it.

I liked what I read until I got down to the part that said

Feh. I like the code tags -- I'm not crazy about having to provide leading white space to trigger a wiki type feature. I live with it in POD, but I'm quite happy with the tag approach that we currently have.

Perhaps this feature could be an alternative -- as SlashDot or GrokLaw allow. How about that option?

Alex / talexb / Toronto

"Groklaw is the open-source mentality applied to legal research" ~ Linus Torvalds

  • Comment on Re^3: Markdown syntax useful to the Monestary?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Markdown syntax useful to the Monestary?
by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Nov 02, 2005 at 15:21 UTC

    Don’t forget that Markdown allows you to write tags in your source which get preserved in the output verbatim. So you can continue writing the way you prefer with Markdown.

    There would either need to be some post-processing in PM’s code, because Markdown entity-escapes code as necessary (like it does with all the other text) and would stick paragraph tags around floating code tags. Or the monastery’s version of Markdown would have to be lightly patched to respect the monasterial bastard-HTML conventions; this would also be prefferable since it adorns intended code blocks with pre tags. Both solutions are fairly minimal.

    I’m not pressing for a Markdown solution solely because I strongly dislike the current official implementation; it uses repeated s/// passes to fix up the input, as opposed to parsing it and then constructing output from that. One of my todo-list items for sometime in the future is to write a solid implementation of Markdown and put it on the CPAN.

    Makeshifts last the longest.

Re^4: Markdown syntax useful to the Monestary?
by DrWhy (Chaplain) on Nov 02, 2005 at 14:54 UTC
    Of course the OP specified you could still use the current PM markup style where you preferred that, so you could still use <code> tags. Personally, I'd probably use a mix of the two systems in this case. <code> tags for long segments and indenting for short segments.

    Personally, I would be in favor of a limited markdown implementation -- If there are any features that don't make sense in PM-land just disable them for PM purposes, e.g., the whole linking syntax seems completely redundant here, the PM linking sytle is much better for almost every application I can think of.

    Actually, if we decide this is a good idea in theory, we should look at other wiki-markup languages to see if any would better fit into the existing PerlMonks style.

    What I am *not* in favor of, though, is a whole on/off switch/preference mechanism that makes you think about which formatting style you want to use for a particular post. If it can't be made to work seemlessly (or nearly so) with the current system then it's more trouble than it's worth. I'm mean the whole point of the proposal is to *simplify* the creation of our posts, not to complicify them.


    "If God had meant for us to think for ourselves he would have given us brains. Oh, wait..."

      If I was in charge (I am not), and if I were to go implement a different syntax, I wouldn't create a hybrid. I'd make a tickbox (not a drop down menu) were people can select (with a per user default) what markup they use. Perlmonks own HTML-bastard, real HTML, Markdown, some wiki dialect, POD, LaTeX, whatever. Make it a pluggable filter so it would be easy to later add other dialects.
      Perl --((8:>*