Re: Consistent formating long descriptions as input data
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Frankly, a poll about micromanaging marks for each level of
unordered list does seem to be technical. It is also an implementation
detail, and invents our own convention,
I disagree.
and options 1 & 2 would cause
many more packages to be changed than would just adopting markdown or
ReST.
Please specify what you mean by "adopting markdown or ReST" more
precisely.
The fact that we need more packages changed for options 1 & 2
makes them technically inferior.
Best practices do not imply a *need* to change anything.
Is there anyone other than yourself who is actually unhappy
about markdown/ReST?
Please remind me at which point I was unhappy about markdown/ReST.
I do not really remember that I was. I just try to enable better
input for any postprocessing.
And should we have similar silly polls (which I have no
intention of promoting by voting in them) for emhpasis? for specifying
bold/italic text? For ordered lists? for a myriad of other useful
markup already familiar to people who know markdown and ReST?
Manoj, please do not give me the feeling that my English is that bad
that I was unable to explain my point in my last mail[1]. If you would
confirm that you missunderstand me intentionally I would gain back
a small amount of trust in my English teacher.
Also, given that there are more output formats than html
available for markdown/ReST is another plus point; we might want other
output formats for Descriptions than plain ol' html.
Hmmm, this paragraph confuses me even more. Going back, reading my
mails again, wondering why I spend so much time in explaining, ...
Kind regards
Andreas.
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/04/msg00713.html
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: