Can people offer opinions on which of these mark-ups they prefer and why? I am thinking both in terms of what to support for Instiki and for general formatting of lonchar fields.
Steve Downey <sldowney@...> writes:> > Can people offer opinions on which of these mark-ups they prefer and why? > > I am thinking both in terms of what to support for Instiki and for general > formatting of lonchar fields. >Specifically, what do you find easier/harder, and what useful features are in one and not in the other.
RedCloth converts both at the same time: http://www.whytheluckystiff.net/ruby/redcloth/ Lucas Carlson http://tech.rufy.com/ On Jul 30, 2005, at 10:53 PM, Steve Downey wrote:> Can people offer opinions on which of these mark-ups they prefer > and why? > > I am thinking both in terms of what to support for Instiki and for > general > formatting of lonchar fields. > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >
Lucas Carlson <rails@...> writes:> > RedCloth converts both at the same time: >I am specifically interested in Instiki formatting. The choices include Textile, Markdown, and Mixed. I''m not sure what mixed is doing, but it sure isn''t picking up Markdown-style headers, <ol>''s, links, etc.
Last I checked, markdown could not do tables. Textile is versatile, but the versatility comes with some complexity. If you want complete control of your html formatting, you might as well use, well, html. However, the basics are easy. My recommendation: if you don''t use tables, use markdown. If you need tables, use textile. -Kelly On 7/31/05, Steve Downey <sldowney-TVLZxgkOlNX2fBVCVOL8/A@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > Lucas Carlson <rails@...> writes: > > > > > RedCloth converts both at the same time: > > > > I am specifically interested in Instiki formatting. > > The choices include Textile, Markdown, and Mixed. > > I''m not sure what mixed is doing, but it sure isn''t picking up > Markdown-style > headers, <ol>''s, links, etc. > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >_______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
They''re quite similar and good. I''ve used both and prefer
Textile as
it''s quicker for the most common things (in other words, less typing,
which is what a markup helper should be all about). Markdown is more
"readable" in its original format but IMO that''s not a big
consideration since it gets converted to HTML for the viewing audience
anyway.
There are 3 areas IMO where Textile outshines markdown:
Headers:
Textile uses h1. h2. h3. at the beginning of a line.
Markdown uses either ====== or #### etc
Lists:
Textile:
* Items
** Subitem
* Item
Markdown:
* Item
* Subitem
* Item
Tables:
Markdown has none.
On 7/30/05, Steve Downey
<sldowney-TVLZxgkOlNX2fBVCVOL8/A@public.gmane.org>
wrote:> Can people offer opinions on which of these mark-ups they prefer and why?
>
> I am thinking both in terms of what to support for Instiki and for general
> formatting of lonchar fields.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>
--
"Impossible is nothing."