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.
