On Friday, 5 June 2015 at 14:16:13 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
What about supporting only a few features like hyperlinks and code blocks? These should be unambiguous and not conflict with anything.

Yes, we could do that, with the downside of implementing our own Markdown variant with its own instruction manual. But we already use footnotes for hyperlinks by convention, and code already looks fine, so what's the gain? Syntax highlighting?

Nice hyperlinks and syntax highlighting.

On Friday, 5 June 2015 at 14:19:06 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
5. You can't edit posts once sent. This means that if you accidentally messed up the formatting (e.g. you pasted code without padding it with whitespace or surrounding it in ```...``` blocks), you can't go back and
edit it now.

This. I mess up markdown all the time. If I can't edit, I'd be screwed :)

Conventional hyperlinks are not going anywhere :)

On Friday, 5 June 2015 at 01:45:58 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
It may be that we have lost potential participants because they
clicked away from the page within seconds of realising there was no
oauth (I definitely would).

It's doable but just seems a little overkill to me. Every time I looked into implementing OAuth I was swamped by how overly complicated it was (or maybe I just never found a succint-enough description).

AFAIK, Nick wanted to write OAuth support library in D.

Reply via email to