I was thinking today that it would be nice to not only have the usual "html" editor, with bold and headings, but to have that support output as Markdown (whatever form, perhaps CommonMark) and a label that displays Markdown. It is such a better format for text, and would allow people to enter it as text etc. It is the way the world is going as it helps with the risks of embedded tags.

Just a thought...

--

Matthew Jones

"Matthew Jones" wrote:

> I was thinking today that it would be nice to not only have the usual "html" editor, with bold and headings, but to
> have that support output as Markdown (whatever form, perhaps CommonMark) and a label that displays
> Markdown. It is such a better format for text, and would allow people to enter it as text etc. It is the way the
> world is going as it helps with the risks of embedded tags.

>Just a thought...

It's a good thought.  I will add that to my custom components kit.

Erick
http://www.erickengelke.com

Matthew,

<< I was thinking today that it would be nice to not only have the usual "html" editor, with bold and headings, but to have that support output as Markdown (whatever form, perhaps CommonMark) and a label that displays Markdown. It is such a better format for text, and would allow people to enter it as text etc. It is the way the world is going as it helps with the risks of embedded tags. >>

I'm going to have to visit this issue shortly when we move our internal web site stuff to EWB 3.  Right now we use an internal, neutral markup syntax so that it can be output to a variety of formats, but I'm considering using HTML or something like Markdown instead.

Tim Young
Elevate Software
www.elevatesoft.com

Tim Young [Elevate Software] wrote:

> Markdown

FWIW, a colleague pushed me to Markdown years ago, and I bought MarkdownPad. Since then I've been amazed at how well it fits most requirements. When compared to Word, it is amazing, producing good output from so much less extra padding of formatting and control bytes. Our only wish is that Markdown editors would natively support the .md.txt extension so it was a more sensibly recognised format, and still readable by those with just .txt editors.

CommonMark is probably the way to go for systems, given that Markdown itself is deliberately imprecise, but it eliminates a lot of hassle with embedded tags.

--

Matthew Jones

"Matthew Jones" wrote:

Tim Young [Elevate Software] wrote:

> Markdown

> FWIW, a colleague pushed me to Markdown years ago, and I bought MarkdownPad.

I've got it working now following CommonMark's spec.  Tonight I will go through the validation suite.  There will undoubtedly be a few fixes required.   Parsing is darned fast.

>CommonMark is probably the way to go for systems, given that Markdown itself is deliberately imprecise,
>but it eliminates a lot of hassle with embedded tags.

Agreed.  I don't know how this was unknown to me before yesterday, I was used to seeing TWikki's.

Erick

--

Matthew Jones
http://www.erickengelke.com

erickengelke wrote:

"Matthew Jones" wrote:

> Markdown
>CommonMark is probably the way to go for systems, given that Markdown itself is deliberately imprecise,
>but it eliminates a lot of hassle with embedded tags.

My early implementation of MarkDown is viewable at

http://erickengelke.com/nice/ewbtestcommonmark.html

I still need to spend a few hours refining it.  It will be available to my Nice Component customers for free.  It will be in the included source, or they can preview the currently imperfect version sooner if they wish.

Erick
http://www.erickengelke.com

erickengelke wrote:

> My early implementation of MarkDown is viewable at

Passes my one minute test!

--

Matthew Jones