Re: Consistent formating long descriptions as input data (Was: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions)
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 09:31:31AM +0200, Andreas Tille <tillea@rki.de> was heard to say:
> Moreover I see no reason to bind anybody to a certain library
> like markdown. My experience has shown that people will insist
> on their very own way to do things. Do you think apt, aptitude,
> synaptic etc. developers would be happy if you start filing bug
> reports to make them use markdown? So my suggestion leaves
> perfectly space for using markdown as well as even raw text
> output - which would look also better with consistent formatting.
I'm happy to support whatever markup language people want to use.
My only concern with markdown is that I use it for my blog, and I
periodically run into weird cases where the formatting doesn't work as
expected. It seems to be especially bad when you start nesting
formatting elements inside each other (quoted text inside a list inside
a list is one example I found in the past). I've made a Markdown
version of the release notes for aptitude releases for the last year or
so and I always seem to find myself randomly adjusting indents until it
stops producing the wrong HTML. For the sorts of markup our
descriptions have now it'll be fine, but it's my experience that when
you give people a hammer they start hitting everything that's vaguely
nail-shaped with it. :-)
But if people want to use markdown, I'll render it.
Daniel
Reply to: