[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Consistent formating long descriptions as input data (Was: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions)



On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:

Nevertheless, I think I got a bit lost in the discussion.
Following it, I had the impression that there was a quasi-agreement on
Markdown. Hence, I'm wondering what is the exact purpose of your
poll. With Markdown, you have alternative markers for denoting
bullet list (which is reasonable and consistent with what we do in
email), so what is the point of choosing one?

I think my whole point was just blured.  I never wanted to change
the format of long descriptions.  I wanted to make it consistently
parseable.  I consider it a good idea to use a formating library
and Manoj has mentioned that this is perfectly possible with the
current format provided you are doing some preprocessing while it
was shown as well that some consistent formatting has to be done
to do this reliable (see the links I gave in the poll).

More generally (and given that even you are unsure about what you
didn't like of Markdown :-)),

To say it explicitely: I like markdown and if this whole discussion
might have no outcome for the descriptions at least I have decided
to use it in my Blends tools.

can you please you two explain why we
can't just say something like "long descriptions are paragraph
separated by dots on single lines; each paragraph is formatted
according to markdown syntax".

I'm afraid that this leaves to much space for broken input as
the airport-utils example in the end of [1] shows.  Manoj tried
to prove that markdown works perfectly - but it does not because
the indentantion of the original input is just wrong.  I want to
fix THIS.

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.

Kind regards

       Andreas.

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/04/msg00713.html

--
http://fam-tille.de


Reply to: