Hi all, I personally use the markup for simple lists and link, so I'm neutral on the choice here.
But do people use a lot more formatting than these two? Is it worth the trouble to support multiple engines? >From the discussion I'm seeing a preference for Markdown. My vote is for changing to markdown instead to textile, using the current dependency on RedCloth. Reinier > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:tracks- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Namens Eric Allen > Verzonden: zaterdag 14 juni 2008 19:27 > Aan: [email protected] > Onderwerp: Re: [Tracks-discuss] textile() vs. markdown() > > Hmm, I guess I've exposed a wider issue. I'm happy to write in support > for different text processors, be they markdown, textile, or something > else. Our default, though, should be something easy that we bundle > with the tracks install. Is RedCloth insufficient for this? > > On Jun 13, 2008, at 1:59 PM, Thomas Nichols wrote: > > > Hi Eric, > > > > irb(main):001:0> require 'redcloth' > > => true > > irb(main):002:0> RedCloth.new("*Goodbye Blue Monday*").to_html > > => "<p><strong>Goodbye Blue Monday</strong></p>" > > irb(main):003:0> require 'maruku' > > => true > > irb(main):004:0> Maruku.new("*Goodbye Blue Monday*").to_html > > => "<p><em>Goodbye Blue Monday</em></p>" > > > > > > > > Since Textile and Markdown syntaxes differ -- in Markdown, > > **strong** and _em_ whereas Textile uses *strong* and _em_ -- I > > don't really grok the code: > > > >> def markdown(text) > >> RedCloth.new(text).to_html > >> end > > > > A separate issue is that although RedCloth _can_ do Markdown, it's a > > very restricted implementation -- hence BlueCloth and Maruku. And > > RDiscount is fantastically fast, but I've had an occasional > > irb(main):003:0> require 'rdiscount' > > => true > > irb(main):004:0> RDiscount.new("*Goodbye Blue Monday*").to_html > > (irb):4: [BUG] Segmentation fault > > ruby 1.8.6 (2008-03-03) [i686-linux] > > > > though usually it gives > > irb(main):001:0> require 'rdiscount' > > => true > > irb(main):002:0> RDiscount.new("*Goodbye Blue Monday*").to_html > > => "<p><em>Goodbye Blue Monday</em></p>\n" > > > > How about a brain-dead solution -- just scribbling a > > class HumaneText; def to_html(string)...end;end > > and then using an environment.rb setting for > > Tracks::TEXT_FORMAT = :rdiscount # :maruku, :bluecloth, :rpeg- > > markdown, :textile > > to decide which processing to apply? > > > > It's not going to win any awards ;-) ... but it would be good enough > > for my needs. What do others want? > > > > Thomas. > > > > > > Eric Allen wrote on 2008/06/13 17:58: > >> Thomas & Walter: They both handle both Markdown and Textile > >> because RedCloth parses both. There will be zero impact on user > >> experience. > >> > >> Reiner: the only difference appears to be hard breaks: > >> > >> def markdown(text) > >> RedCloth.new(text).to_html > >> end > >> > >> def textilize(text) > >> if text.blank? > >> "" > >> else > >> textilized = RedCloth.new(text, [ :hard_breaks ]) > >> textilized.hard_breaks = true if textilized.respond_to? > >> ("hard_breaks=") > >> textilized.to_html > >> end > >> end > >> > >> :hard_breaks means one newline is a <br/> and two makes a paragraph > >> > >> > >> On Jun 13, 2008, at 1:56 AM, Reinier Balt wrote: > >> > >> > >>> It does make sense to keep everything consistent. Is there much > >>> difference between markdown and textilize, besides textilize being > >>> a built-in Rails helper? > >>> > >>> Reinier > >>> > >>> Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:tracks- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> ]Namens Eric Allen > >>> Verzonden: vrijdag 13 juni 2008 3:32 > >>> Aan: [email protected] > >>> Onderwerp: [Tracks-discuss] textile() vs. markdown() > >>> > >>> I was looking through commit #876 today and noticed that in some > >>> places we use markdown() to invoke RedCloth, and in others we use > >>> textilize(). Does it make sense to keep everything consistent? If > >>> so, it seems to me textilize() would be better, since it's a > >>> built- in Rails helper. > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Tracks-discuss mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://lists.rousette.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/tracks-discuss > >> > > _______________________________________________ > Tracks-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.rousette.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/tracks-discuss _______________________________________________ Tracks-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rousette.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/tracks-discuss
