Fletcher T. Penney <[email protected]> wrote: But I think the biggest issue is the monospace vs proportional > font problem. This plagues every proposed table syntax out there (to > my knowledge) --- tables just aren't going to look right in both font types > in plain text files. Proper alignment is a key feature of tables, and it's > frustrating when this is destroyed by changing the font.
The fact that columns in such tables are not aligned when a proportional font is used is not pertinent, in my opinion. Even a *jagged* "Markdown" table does a better job of representing data in a tabular fashion than HTML's mess of <tr>s, <th>s, and <td>s. David On 11 May 2011 00:09, Simon Bull <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Thomas, > > In reply to your comments... > > Yes, I have assumed mono-spaced (or equivalent) rendering throughout. > > Comparing examples 1.1 and example 2.3.b, yes you are correct. I need to > update the description given for 1.1 (the so called "compact form"). The > compact form (without blank lines or rules between rows) will always result > in a single table row with multiple lines per row. > > However, it would be possible to also specify a "single line per row" > interpretation if that is a desired feature. > > Your comment re: "line breaks" versus "blank lines" is also taken on board. > > Thanks for your valuable comments, > > Simon > > > > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Thomas Humiston <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Notes from a writer who makes occasional light use of Markdown and is not >> involved in implementations at all (nor especially familiar with other -down >> table syntaxes): >> >> I view my plain-text emails in a proportional font (Verdana). Simon's >> tables look ragged that way, but readable and not terribly unpleasant. >> >> Such decoding of occasional monospace-intended bits is, in my view, a >> fairly conventional matter in email, and thus congruent with Markdown's >> inspiration. Perhaps the matter of mono vs. proportional is not such a >> bugbear after all, at least for small-to-medium tables (and for the rest, >> there's always HTML). >> >> But wait -- Given 2.1.b's handling of empty cells, it seems the proposal >> still assumes some degree of monospace involvement. Similarly, 3.1.a speaks >> of omitting a space-denoted column break from "between" two columns, a break >> that is "between" in a sense (either visual or numeric) that's likely >> obvious in monospace only. >> >> So in the proposal, colspans do depend on character counts, and thus on >> monospace writing tools (except in tables simple enough for manual >> counting). Well, I suppose most authors of Markdown texts use such tools >> anyway. >> >> A confusing bit for me: Section 2.3.b leaves me thinking that the compact >> form is usable only for single-row bodies, and NOT for, say, "three rows and >> three columns" as indicated in Section 1.1. Also, I'd suggest instructing >> authors to use "blank lines" as Gruber does instead of "line breaks" (as the >> latter connotes carriage returns and/or newline characters). >> >> - TH >> >> >> >> Simon Bull wrote: >> >> ~~~~~ >>> >>> >>> ----------------------------------- >>> THE PEOPLE OF MIDDLE-EARTH >>> ----------------------------------- >>> >>> People Homeland Tongue >>> =================================== >>> Elves Rivendell, Quenya, >>> Mirkwood, Sindarin, >>> Lorien Nandorin >>> >>> Dwarves Erebor Khuzdul >>> >>> Hobbits The Shire, Westron >>> Breeland >>> >>> >>> ~~~~~ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> Markdown-Discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Markdown-Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ Markdown-Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
