Hello, Relatively new to Ruby/Rails, new to Instiki this weekend. For end users, would you prefer Textile or Markdown. Note: this assumes you can''t do both; I have tried the "Mixed" mark-up choice in Instiki and id didn''t seem to pick up Markdown numbered lists, headers, links, etc. Textile is the choice for the Instiki site and the Rails site and is the default, so I presume there is some reason for this? The "hn" tags seem more intuitive, and it has table support that Markdown seems to lack. I am a little leery of the horror stories I''ve read of Textile bugs causing certain markup to crash an Instiki instance (or is that fixed?) I really like the link options in Markdown. Anyway, enough rambling. Steve
On Jul 31, 2005, at 7:51 AM, Steve Downey wrote:> > For end users, would you prefer Textile or Markdown.I think Markdown is easier to read and Textile is easier to write. The h1. tags of textile blend in with the rest of the text. Markdown''s headings syntax is easier to spot as you scan the text. The Markdown reference syntax for links can allow for greater visibility and accuracy of those urls and title tags. Also, only Textile supports export to Tex and PDF format (but i''ve never played with those). -derek
On 7/31/05, Derek Gulbranson <derek@derekgulbranson.com> wrote:> > I think Markdown is easier to read and Textile is easier to write.I agree. Since you mostly use a markup helper for writing, not reading, that''s why I prefer Textile over Markup. -- "Impossible is nothing."
On Jul 31, 2005, at 11:23 AM, zer0halo wrote:> Since you mostly use a markup helper for writing, not > reading, that''s why I prefer Textile over Markup.Depends on the situation. For my content I don''t write it, I just edit it. The original copy is written in Word or something of the author''s choosing. In this situation, being easier to read is more important than easier to write. Easier to read means fewer mistakes. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/instiki-users/attachments/20050731/969cc977/attachment.htm
But does the original author write it using markup, or do you insert the markup as you edit? If the latter, then aren''t you "writing" as well? Nevertheless, I agree that under some conditions, reading might be more useful than writing. So both Textile and Markdown maybe be equally suitable depending on the situation. Speaking of Word, one of those "projects" on my list is to write a Word macro that converts basic Word formatting (bold/italics, headers, bullets, etc.) to Textile (or Markdown) automatically. Or maybe there''s already one out there--I haven''t really looked. On 7/31/05, Derek Gulbranson <derek@derekgulbranson.com> wrote:> > On Jul 31, 2005, at 11:23 AM, zer0halo wrote: > > > Since you mostly use a markup helper for writing, not > > reading, that''s why I prefer Textile over Markup. > Depends on the situation. For my content I don''t write it, I just edit it. > The original copy is written in Word or something of the author''s choosing. > In this situation, being easier to read is more important than easier to > write. Easier to read means fewer mistakes.-- "Impossible is nothing." -- "Impossible is nothing."
On Jul 31, 2005, at 12:27 PM, zer0halo wrote:> But does the original author write it using markup, or do you insert > the markup as you edit? If the latter, then aren''t you "writing" as > well?Yea, I just take the text and add markup. It''s easier than creating the XHTML by hand. I generally am not terribly aware of the subject matter of the text, so I hesitate to use "writing" to describe what I''m doing.> Speaking of Word, one of those "projects" on my list is to write a > Word macro that converts basic Word formatting (bold/italics, headers, > bullets, etc.) to Textile (or Markdown) automatically. Or maybe > there''s already one out there--I haven''t really looked.I have not seen one but I would love such a macro. Currently I do a Word export to HTML, use Dreamweaver''s clean Word HTML macro, then convert that to Markdown with html2text.py. It''s not that clean when I''m done but is still helpful for large documents. Since an XHTML > Markdown script exists, you might be better off doing a Word > XHTML macro, that just output simple XHTML with no formatting that will translate easily into markup. Then you could use that XHTML for a lot of other things, Markdown, or write a XHTML > Textile script. Perhaps a Word > Clean XHTML macro exists already...? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/instiki-users/attachments/20050731/6f1415fe/attachment.htm