On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 08:07:11PM +0300, Alexandru E. Ungur wrote: > >>> sender: "Anselm R. Garbe" date: "Fri, May 19, 2006 at 03:50:23PM +0200" > >>> <<<EOQ > > On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 09:14:14AM -0400, John Nowak wrote: > > > Markdown's main goal is to be readable as plain text, i.e., it should > > > have full meaning even if never parsed. I don't have access to the > > > edit pages on the plan 9 wiki to compare. A lot of thought has gone > > > into Markdown. Depending on what you mean by "the look ... of the > > > wiki syntax", it may be worth a look. If you just mean a clean syntax > > > for markup, with the readability as a document in and of itself does > > > not really matter, Markdown is not the right choice (too verbose > > > mainly, perhaps too much freedom). If you want the syntax for the > > > wiki to double as distributable text file documentation, you'd be > > > hard-pressed to do better than Markdown. (I'd be interested in the > > > results of your efforts if you try however.) > > > > Actually I like this Markdown stuff (didn't knew it before). > > Even if it is written in perl, I'd consider to integrate that > > into a ruby taggi. (maybe it is easy to convert it to ruby, > > dunno). > Hehe, we're in luck then: > http://raa.ruby-lang.org/project/bluecloth/
Cool. Actually it is even smaller, the bluecloth.rb has 676 SLOC, the Markdown has 805 lines. -- Anselm R. Garbe ><>< www.ebrag.de ><>< GPG key: 0D73F361 _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://wmii.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/wmii
