On 23/10/14 13:02, Jan Kundrát wrote:
> On Thursday, 23 October 2014 12:03:20 CEST, Luca Barbato wrote:
>> While discussing about commonmark adoption one of the point is how to
>> foster usage.
>>
>> How hard would be having a commonmark (markdown) mode that gets
>> translated in html in trojita?
>
> (Replying to the Trojita ML as agreed. Folks, please keep Luca in Cc,
> he's not subscribed here.)
Thanks a lot!
> In general, I do not think that this is a good idea. E-mail is extremely
> conservative, and there's a ton of broken tooling out here. There's no
> chance to send e-mails in markdown only, nobody would be able to read
> them (well, Trojita would show its source, but we haven't exactly
> achieved world domination just yet).
The idea is to let people write in markdown and get the multipart html
generated from there.
> So about the only reasonable choice is to embed the markdown as yet
> another format in a multipart/alternative container, and hope that it
> doesn't break stupid clients which are hard-coded to look for a
> text/plain at offset 0, and text/html at offset 1 -- given my experience
> on StackOverflow, there is plenty of people who find *that* reasonable.
brrr... Not nice indeeed.
> At that point the quesiton is "what you're hoping to achieve". Is it any
> better if one suddenly starts getting multipart/alternetive with three
> parts instead of two?
Markdown and normal text are equivalent for most use cases e.g. this
text is valid [commonmark][1].
> Is there anything else you find valuable within e-mails? Stuff such as
> headings, ordered/unordered lists,...?
For technical mailing list I'd say that fenced code might be nice to
support out of box
```
int main()
{
return 0;
}
```
Might be mildly useful as well
[1]: http://commonmark.org
