Am Fri, 16 Sep 2016 13:16:35 +0200
schrieb Jacob Carlborg <>:

> My biggest issue with the macros is not the syntax (I don't like that 
> either) but it's that one needs to use them too much.

Same for me. I feel like this discussion is probably
picking out the wrong enemy. Sure macros need some way of
escaping, but I'm happy with anything that replaces macros in
common use case scenarios with more readable syntax, just like
the design goals stated back in the day:

1. It looks good as embedded documentation, not just after it
   is extracted and processed.
2. It's easy and natural to write, i.e. minimal reliance on
   <tags> and other clumsy forms one would never see in a
   finished document.

The abundance of macros for common formatting tasks like
emphasis, (un)ordered lists and - a while ago - inline code,
contradicts point 2 when compared to a bottom up approach,
where you take a look at some plain text documents and ask
yourself: If there is only ASCII, how do people use it
creatively to convey the idea of formatting in a natural way
and can we deduce rules from that to automatically transform
text into PDF/HTML/CHM/...
I want to think that markdown came into existence like this.
Someone sat down and formalized a list of things people
already do and slapped a name on it.


Reply via email to