in reply to Re^3: Markdown syntax useful to the Monestary?
in thread Markdown syntax useful to the Monastery?

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..."

  • Comment on Re^4: Markdown syntax useful to the Monestary?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Markdown syntax useful to the Monestary?
by Perl Mouse (Chaplain) on Nov 02, 2005 at 15:01 UTC
    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:>*