Re: Markup in mail messages
On Wed, 2024-05-15 at 15:57 +0100, Darac Marjal wrote:
> On 15/05/2024 03:17, Max Nikulin wrote:
>
> > On 15/05/2024 02:32, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 08:16:20PM +0200, Nicolas George wrote:
> > >
> > > > Messages in Markdown in the Windows world? I have never seen it.
> > >
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > The only sensible interpretation I can
> > > come up with for why these asterisks were added is that they're being
> > > placed around text that's supposed to be emphasized/italicized.
> >
> >
> > *Bold*, /italics/, and _underlined_ markup is supported by various
> > mailers, e.g. Thunderbird and Gnus. Some render superscripts^1 and
> > subscripts_2 as well.
> >
> > Backticks (`echo $PATH`) are more specific to markdown. However
> > sometimes I use them not expecting that the message will be rendered as
> > markdown. Just to avoid ambiguity where a piece of code starts and ends.
> >
>
> When this sort of subject comes up (as it does, every so often), I
> wonder why `text/markdown` isn't offered as a mime type for sending
> emails. If you're an MUA and you're going to parse text/plain for
> markup, then why not offer text/markdown as the body of the message? I
> know that there have been various attempts to bridge the gap between
> "text/plain is too basic" and "text/html is too powerful" such as
> text/enriched and text/rtf, but Markdown seems to be hitting a sweet
> spot of being easy to write and being widely adopted elsewhere.
Evolution delivers on a markdown option.\
Cheers!
Reply to: