I can haz Markdown? November 17, 2007 12:11 AM   Subscribe

Can we have Markdown? It's so neat. I subconsciously compose everything in it and it's now a slight pain writing actual HTML tags. For instance, you can do a quote by starting the first line of a paragraph "> " instead of having to wrap it in blockquote/close blockquote tags. It's way easier to do useful things.
posted by evariste to Feature Requests at 12:11 AM (67 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite

Please make it disable able if implemented as it would seem to use a lot of common syntax that the ignorant may not want converted. Probably by default would be best so you'd have to turn it on to use it.
posted by Mitheral at 12:16 AM on November 17, 2007


More on the syntax. The link text using [] as a delimiter is especially hazardous as [] aren't special characters at the moment.
posted by Mitheral at 12:22 AM on November 17, 2007


Install this and be done with it.
posted by Rhomboid at 1:10 AM on November 17, 2007


Markdown makes me want to stab eyeballs. Make it an option perhaps, but for the geek love of all that's holy, don't make it the standard for marking stuff up here. Not that I'm all that worried that it might happen, of course, but still.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:17 AM on November 17, 2007 [1 favorite]


I've seen it come to be so hated on other sites that this was created.
posted by threeze at 2:01 AM on November 17, 2007 [2 favorites]


It doesn't sound like it'd be practical for Metafilter, since it's not a widespread standard. Stick with Rhomboid's suggestion.
posted by spiderskull at 2:04 AM on November 17, 2007


I second what threeze said. I hate markdown, no offense to Gruber.
posted by riffola at 2:26 AM on November 17, 2007


No. you can not "have" Markdown. Jeez.
posted by caddis at 5:24 AM on November 17, 2007 [1 favorite]


TWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
posted by briank at 5:49 AM on November 17, 2007 [2 favorites]


Can we have Markdown MediaWiki syntax BBCode Textile HTML?
posted by Plutor at 6:29 AM on November 17, 2007


I want support for ASN.1!
posted by Foci for Analysis at 6:46 AM on November 17, 2007


This is unlikely to be implemented. HTML is at least a standard and one that enough people hve problems with as it is that adding something new -- esp something that included things like normal characters as markup indicators -- seems unlikely. I suggest the userscript that Rhomboid points to.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:11 AM on November 17, 2007


I [LINK TO MY USERPAGE] dont [WIKIPEDIALINK] think that it [LINK TO MARKDOWN WEBPAGE] would be a [LINK TO WHITEHOUSE.GOV] good idea.
posted by blue_beetle at 7:28 AM on November 17, 2007


no. html is simple.
posted by quonsar at 7:31 AM on November 17, 2007 [2 favorites]


When will the admins wise up and dumb down the site?
posted by Eideteker at 7:33 AM on November 17, 2007


Can we have the img tag back?
posted by felix betachat at 7:35 AM on November 17, 2007 [4 favorites]


This would be a great Firefox extension.
posted by smackfu at 7:35 AM on November 17, 2007 [1 favorite]


Nope, too nerdy for mefi
posted by mathowie (staff) at 7:58 AM on November 17, 2007 [2 favorites]


I actually wish I could use HTML on wikipedia, or other wikis. I suppose markdown is easier to type. But we can't even use that much markup on metafilter anyway, so I don't think a few tags would kill anyone.

Obviously I wouldn't have a problem if it was a user option.
posted by delmoi at 7:59 AM on November 17, 2007


How about vi keybindings for the comment box? I'm just asking you to implement vi in javascript. It would be worth it, because (1) I'd like it, and (2) that's the main point really. (This should not be disable-able.)
posted by Wolfdog at 8:07 AM on November 17, 2007 [6 favorites]


What they said. Yikes. No. Bad. Trifecta.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:10 AM on November 17, 2007


It would also simplify things because you could get rid of the post button.
posted by Wolfdog at 8:10 AM on November 17, 2007


I second Wolfdog's suggestion.
:wq
posted by Plutor at 8:20 AM on November 17, 2007 [2 favorites]


I don't know what the hell you people are talking about a lot of the time. But I will never admit that.
posted by LarryC at 8:31 AM on November 17, 2007


Can't we just get rid of the comment box? It would make things so much simpler.
posted by Kattullus at 8:39 AM on November 17, 2007 [1 favorite]


Why is everyone mad about the [cups](markdown)?
posted by 31d1 at 9:04 AM on November 17, 2007


can we have an option to use Adobe After Effects Expressions code in the text box? I use it so often at work that it's really much easier for me than simply being in jerk in plain text.
posted by shmegegge at 9:17 AM on November 17, 2007 [1 favorite]


# **No**
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 9:22 AM on November 17, 2007 [1 favorite]


All of these requests are inferior before the Ur-standard of RIPScript.
posted by boo_radley at 9:25 AM on November 17, 2007


If you are feeling grumpy and unindulged next Thursday, just be thankful that we still have blink and small.
posted by Cranberry at 9:49 AM on November 17, 2007


Cran!
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 10:26 AM on November 17, 2007


Since we've achieved the trifecta, can I ask a formatting question here? How do you type comments that look like html formatting? For example, if I want a <> with some text in between and then a <> to actually display on the screen, how would I accomplish this? If I type it, I get:

some text in between

which of course just looks like normal text. But what if I want all the characters I typed to show up? I've seen people do this, so I figure there's some sort of "comment" code where what you type is what you get.

Also, LarryC, I hear ya on that one.
posted by mosessis at 10:41 AM on November 17, 2007


mosessis, you need to use named entities in place of the literal characters. The angle brackets are coded as &lt; and &gt; respectively.

So if you enter this into the comment box:

&lt;snookums&gt;

You'll come out with this:

<snookums>

And all is happiness and warmth.

Keep this in mind as well if you ever want to use an < as a "less than" sign in some sort of equation or math joke or whatever: use the entity and not the raw character to avoid munging your comment if you later includes some code, because the tag-completer code in the comment workflow will take everything from the left-bracket-as-equivilance character to the right bracket at the end of the following html tag to be a big weird html tag, eating everything between.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:52 AM on November 17, 2007 [2 favorites]


..and then, after you've typed them in that way, be careful! Because hitting preview will wipe them out, in one of the sneakiest little pernicious mefi traps. Preview is not your false friend.
posted by Wolfdog at 10:56 AM on November 17, 2007


Is not your friend. Is a false friend.
posted by Wolfdog at 10:56 AM on November 17, 2007


\documentclass[10pt,web]{comment}
\pagestyle{empty}
\begin{comment}

\strong{$L^{A}T_{E}X $ 4 Life!}

\end{comment}
posted by bonehead at 12:14 PM on November 17, 2007 [1 favorite]


\strong{$L^{A}T_{E}X $ 4 Life!}

You can't be too devoted an adherent if you don't know that \LaTeX is the proper way to do that.
posted by Wolfdog at 12:39 PM on November 17, 2007 [1 favorite]


Can we please have Matt's mailing address so we can send him comments via snail-mail, handwritten with a quill pen on parchment?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:47 PM on November 17, 2007 [1 favorite]


Is there any way we can have Reveal Codes, like in WordPerfect?
posted by grumblebee at 12:57 PM on November 17, 2007 [1 favorite]


Yeah, actually that preview-vs-entity bug is one I'd love to see get squashed.
posted by whir at 1:33 PM on November 17, 2007


APL plz.
posted by meehawl at 1:33 PM on November 17, 2007


LOL.

OK, point taken.
posted by evariste at 2:01 PM on November 17, 2007


Rhomboid-cool, thanks. I'll try that Userscript.
posted by evariste at 3:06 PM on November 17, 2007


Can we please have Matt's mailing address so we can send him comments via snail-mail, handwritten with a quill pen on parchment?

Send me a SASE and I'll send it to you.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:30 PM on November 17, 2007


FIND A SAW
posted by fleacircus at 8:17 PM on November 17, 2007


Thanks, cortex and Wolfdog. And now I understand why people complain about preview screwing up their text.

Just for a test:
&lt/a&gt

posted by mosessis at 9:40 PM on November 17, 2007


damn it!

</a>
posted by mosessis at 9:41 PM on November 17, 2007


ok, phew.
posted by mosessis at 9:41 PM on November 17, 2007


Can we get rid of blink and small?

I can has emacs editing commands?

Maybe one reason people don't use blockquote enough is that if you do it the naive way, you get too much vertical space around the quote. (I'm too lazy to write up an example, see this comment for more info if you're interested.) Any chance of fixing that?
posted by Crabby Appleton at 10:04 PM on November 17, 2007


This is why I never use Preview, see.

Can we get rid of blink and small?

Death first.

Maybe one reason people don't use blockquote enough is that if you do it the naive way, you get too much vertical space around the quote.

We really should fix that, yeah.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:06 PM on November 17, 2007


I would like a million lotus flowers to bloom out of my ass; and no, this should not be disableable - I want it hardwired into the site.

[lotusbloom] This is where they come out my ass.[/lotusbloom]
posted by Meatbomb at 8:18 AM on November 18, 2007


ok, phew.

Yeah, for god's sake, don't forget the terminal ; on your named entities. Live Preview couches lies in its black heart and will render them even without the semicolon, but it won't work on post.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:28 AM on November 18, 2007


Please, god, no. The entry bar is already set way too low.
posted by dg at 2:27 AM on November 19, 2007


Slightly off topic but; why is the quick link for I in the comment box actually ‹em› for emphasis?
posted by GeckoDundee at 6:50 AM on November 19, 2007


Italics is depreciated but everyone still thinks that is should be used because most browsers render em as italics.
posted by Mitheral at 10:04 AM on November 19, 2007


The I tag is quite definitely NOT deprecated. (HTML 4.01, HTML 5 working draft) The difference is related to the use of semantic-ness in the web. The em tag is intended for giving emphasis. For instance the word "NOT" in the previous sentence. The I tag is used for things that are to be rendered in italics. Like movie titles or foreign phrases.

The HTML 5 working draft says: "The i element represents a span of text in an alternate voice or mood, or otherwise offset from the normal prose, such as a taxonomic designation, a technical term, an idiomatic phrase from another language, a thought, a ship name, or some other prose whose typical typographic presentation is italicized."
posted by Plutor at 10:33 AM on November 19, 2007


The em tag is intended for giving emphasis.

by making them italics.

The I tag is used for things that are to be rendered in italics.

For instance, to emphasize something.

for real, I still think geckodundee asked a good question. is there a circumstance where em is NOT italics? or where strong is NOT bold?
posted by shmegegge at 10:51 AM on November 19, 2007


Yes, the em tag is rendered as italics in more or less every graphical browser's default stylesheet. But I've seen plenty of stylesheets that give additional rules, such as also making the font bold. I've also seen a surprising number of stylesheets for fonts that use "<em>*</em>" as the "required" marker, and give the rule "form em { color: red }" or some such.
posted by Plutor at 10:57 AM on November 19, 2007


Another reason why you'd want to denote emphasis as separate from italic-ness: screen readers.
posted by Plutor at 10:59 AM on November 19, 2007


Screen readers, yes. And text browsers: terminal fonts chortle at italics, so getting seeing things emphasized somehow else is nice.

I still use the <i> tag for everything, though, because I'm lazy and stubborn to boot.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:56 AM on November 19, 2007


Use the "em" tag when you want to emphasize something; use the "i" tag when you want to use italics for some other reason (e.g., ship names, quoted text on MetaFilter).

The blanket replacement of "i" and "b" tags with "em" and "strong" is no more semantically correct than using "i" and "b" when you mean "em" and "strong".
posted by timeistight at 12:32 PM on November 19, 2007


Well glad to see my laziness is actually ok, I always used to feel a teeny bit guilt everytime I id instead of emd.
posted by Mitheral at 7:28 PM on November 19, 2007


Bolding is a form of emphasis. So <em> could go either way. And strong? I always thought strong language referred to cursing like a motherfucking sailor.
posted by Eideteker at 7:34 PM on November 19, 2007


Auntie <em>, Auntie <em>! It's a tw<i>ster!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:42 PM on November 19, 2007 [1 favorite]


Sorry.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:42 PM on November 19, 2007


Don't <b> sorry, be <strong>.
posted by dg at 12:58 AM on November 20, 2007


<blink>

Oh no you didn't.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:38 AM on November 20, 2007


« Older 19: The Daring Interview   |   Where should this question go? Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments