On 28 August 2014 20:16, Dan Allen <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for your feedback Lex. It's great to hear from you. I'm definitely > excited about the challenges that lie ahead. > > I do want to clarify something hopefully to your delight. > >> But I do dislike the current effective removal of two line headers by >> making them signal old syntax, without even a deprecation period. >> >> I really *HATE* the one line syntax, having to *COUNT* f-ing equals >> all the time :( When I can just recognise two line titles. I don't >> care if the syntax is hard for the processor, thats its problem, I'm >> reading the stuff all the time as I'm writing and its a pain to count. > > We haven't removed two line titles in Asciidoctor & will continue to support > them, at least in compatibility mode. In 1.5.0, they work even when > compat-mode is not set.
Thats neat, because I do like the other syntax changes and want to use them. I read the docs as saying that if a two line header was found, then compatibility mode was switched on, preventing the use of the new syntax. Maybe I should read it more closely :) > > As I'm sure you're aware, we just haven't documented them. We believe it's > better for writers to type less and easier to teach the single-line form. > > Having said that, this will clearly be an important and tricky conversation > for the standard. I can already think of ways to define the spec so it > doesn't have the alignment problems with multibyte chars & variable-width > fonts in the current implementation. I'm ready to keep my mind open. Yes, I don't write in non-European languages, and I mainly am documenting programs, so I use an IDE with fixed width fonts the same as the programs themselves, so its easy for me. But I do acknowledge the issues for others. Alternatives that don't require alignment or counting equals would be welcome. > > The reason I'm keeping my mind open about headings & other syntax is because > I understand that comfort with the syntax is important to the author's > writing process. It's one of the main reasons AsciiDoc is gaining on > Markdown. We can't make everyone happy, so it's a give & take. What we want > is to achieve something with which any reasonable writer feels comfortable. >From what I have heard around the traps is that one of the other issues with markdown is that "it is such a wonderful standard, everybody has one" :-D Its really an object lesson in why an Ascii/Unidoc standard is needed, there are project discussions about "which markdown processor has most market share" to try to decide which version of markdown to support. I certainly would be interested in contributing to the standard effort (modulo time availability) when it gets started. Cheers Lex PS Sadly Unidoc and Unidocs names seems to have been used by a number of companies around the world that specialise in ... documentation tools and/or services etc I guess that says that Unidoc is a good name but too late its taken :( > > Cheers! > > -Dan > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "asciidoc" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/asciidoc. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "asciidoc" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/asciidoc. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
