Hi Stef - I think your’s is a fair requirement (in fact I hit something similar when doing a static website using a JS markdown framework - and this is why I mentioned Kramdown which adds a few extras to regular markdown - but it feels like it goes a bit too far).
My next item on my learning todo list was to try and replace that JS generator with something from Smalltalk - so I think we can possibly come up with something that ticks all the right boxes (I’d like to try anyway). I’ll keep working away on it and compare notes with you. I think with Pillar, it was more that things like headers, bold and italics are similar concepts but just use different characters - so I keep typing the wrong thing and getting frustrated particularly when we embrace Git and readme.md is in markdown. Tim > On 13 Aug 2017, at 20:08, Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.s...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi tim > > I personally do not care much about the syntax but I care about what I > can do with it > (ref, cite, ... ) > I cannot write books in markdown because reference to figures!!!!!! > were missing. > > And of course a parser because markdown is not really nice to parse > and I will not write a parser because I have something else to do. I > want to make pillar smaller, simpler, nicer. > > Now if someone come up with a parser that parse for REAL a markdown > that can be extended with decent behavior (figure reference, section > reference, cite) and can be extended because there are many things > that can be nice to have (for example I want to be able to write the > example below) and emit a PillarModel (AST) we can talk to have > another syntax for Pillar but not before. > > [[[test > 2+3 >>>> 5 > ]]] > > and being able to verify that the doc is in sync. > > > Stef > > > > On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 12:37 AM, Tim Mackinnon <tim@testit.works> wrote: >> Of course, I/we recognise and appreciate all the work that's gone into docs >> in pillar - but I think it should be reasonably straightforward to write a >> converter as it is pretty closely related from what I have seen. >> >> So I don't make the suggestion flippantly, and would want to help write a >> converter and get us to a common ground where we can differentiate on the >> aspects where we can excel. >> >> Tim >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On 11 Aug 2017, at 23:21, Peter Uhnak <i.uh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> A long time issue with Markdown was that there was no standardization (and >>> when I used Pillar's MD export ~2 years ago it didn't work well). >>> >>> However CommonMark ( http://spec.commonmark.org/0.28/ ) has become the >>> de-facto standard, so it would make sense to support it bidirectionally >>> with Pillar. >>> >>>> The readme.md that Peter is talking about is gfm markdown >>> >>> Well, technically it is just a CommonMark, as I am not using any github >>> extensions. >>> (Github uses CommonMarks and adds just couple small extensions.) >>> >>> Peter >>> >> >> >
