Hello

My quick thought:

As a general rule, I find mixing Markdown and TiddlyWiki wikitext not the 
best idea. My main use case for Markdown is as an interoperable format. If 
I were to mix Markdown and wikitext, then I could no longer be certain the 
document I create will be interoperable if I put the text through a 
Markdown processor. Also curious how others are using Markdown in TW. Of 
course I'm fine using wikitext since I've been writing in TW for so long, 
but I can see how some people don't want to have to remember yet another 
syntax.

- Mark

On Wednesday, May 20, 2020 at 3:41:32 AM UTC-7, TiddlyTweeter wrote:
>
> Recently there has been renewed discussion of "Markdown".
>
> My problem with it is both ...
>
> 1 -- A useful approach to markup by Gruber;
>
>
> 2 -- And a huge complexity of variant implementations of Gruber's vision.
>
>
> When people say TW "Markdown" is not full "Markdown" ...
>
> A -- Which variant Markdown flavour are they using?
>
>
> B -- Which features of (their used) Markdown flavour do they need in TW?
>
>
> Properly clarifying this would help a lot finally solve this issue better.
>
> It is likely only possible to solve the majority cases.
>
> I have NO idea what they are.
>
> TT
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/0d3a45cb-70a0-49d8-a438-61c16cacddd1%40googlegroups.com.

Reply via email to