Re:You shouldn’t use Markdown for content anymore
by kibbleble on Monday February 21, 2022 @12:24PM
(#30418239)
I think it's helpful to distinguish between "authors" and "publishers." We can see this play out in the traditional publishing industry.
Authors are supposed to submit a manuscript with the least amount of formatting. Images are given in a separate folder and only referenced in the manuscript, maybe with a couple notes on alignment. Markdown precisely forces the author to follow this contract. Just write the content and organize the chapters.
Ultimately it's the publishing house's job to format and create the final rendition, insert and design the fancy tables that you see in, for example, a chemistry textbook. In the corporate world, their publishing houses are called technical writers/content strategy/learning development/marketing departments.
So the idea of not using Markdown is both right and wrong. It's totally unfair to expect contributors and authors to understand everything about formatting and publishing. But, Markdown is only the first step in an entire toolchain. If people cannot tell what part of the process they fall on (authoring vs publishing) then it's going to be confusing.
Re:You shouldn’t use Markdown for content anymore
by kmelve on Saturday February 19, 2022 @07:58PM
(#30402155)
Hi, the author here! This is a misrepresentation of my argument. I'm not interested in locking you in at all, I'm actually arguing for the opposite. It doesn't even have to be JSON.
Re:You shouldn’t use Markdown for content anymore
by kmelve on Saturday February 19, 2022 @08:01PM
(#30402171)
As the “humanities tecnologist” in question, I'd say that looking at technology as a result of and embedded in human history and culture can be quite interesting and you might even learn something from it. But of course, you could also read and relate to the argument on its own merits?
Re:You shouldn’t use Markdown for content anymore
by nikau on Sunday February 20, 2022 @04:45AM
(#30404506)
The article is the opposite of what markdown strives for - waffling on and awful formatting.
Markdown is good because its simple, and has all the required formatting tags required to communicate information succinctly, and is not desirable for people who prefer formatting over content.
Authors are supposed to submit a manuscript with the least amount of formatting. Images are given in a separate folder and only referenced in the manuscript, maybe with a couple notes on alignment. Markdown precisely forces the author to follow this contract. Just write the content and organize the chapters.
Ultimately it's the publishing house's job to format and create the final rendition, insert and design the fancy tables that you see in, for example, a chemistry textbook. In the corporate world, their publishing houses are called technical writers/content strategy/learning development/marketing departments.
So the idea of not using Markdown is both right and wrong. It's totally unfair to expect contributors and authors to understand everything about formatting and publishing. But, Markdown is only the first step in an entire toolchain. If people cannot tell what part of the process they fall on (authoring vs publishing) then it's going to be confusing.
Markdown is good because its simple, and has all the required formatting tags required to communicate information succinctly, and is not desirable for people who prefer formatting over content.