I still cannot believe MDN decided to abandon web standards for the garbage that is Markdown. Worse yet, they seem proud of themselves for doing it.
Rather than actually solve the problem of filtering WYSIWYG input/output, providing a solution for creating easy to create and maintain semantic HTML, Mozilla shunted it aside and now use a stack of custom tooling and libraries and yet another Markdown-alike variant text format with their own scripting embeds and then patted themselves on the backs for all the effort they "saved".
Mozilla is supposed to be the standard bearer for web standards. It's sad to see that bunch of myopic techies decided to go with a trendy solution that just trashed a core principle of the organization (#6) for one of its most important products. It set an example others are now following, and as a result, MDN put the web back probably two decades.
Rather than embarking on something that proved to be hard by decades of trying, or inventing something complex and unique, Mozilla took a less powerful existing tool, very simple and well known to every contributor.
They acted as if they tried to make it simple and easy for the community to keep MDN up and up to date. Outrageous!
Well, by the book and its origins, there is no improvement just because in Markdown you can use any HTML. Markdown itself is part of the try when you follow the path of its history and when marketed as a subset, it means (and that approach may be valid), let us go back and reduce to the early set of HTML tags.
I wrote enough basic HTML tags back in 1995 to say that writing _this way_ is way more ergonomic than <i>this way</i>.
The thing is that HTML (and SGML) was invented, but Markdown was discovered as a set of best practices through decades of text-only mailing lists. This is something that many people found natural enough.
Sure, if adding symbols to text is enough, why do more?
It's bending perhaps history of mankind in my book a little too much, saying the author of Markdown has discovered that and not lets say, someone else the "one or other" millennia earlier.
And writing on the computer is commonly the least ergonomic form of writing at all.
I've upbooped this perspective but I disagree. Markdown trivially compiles to HTML and is justifiably loved (aside from the proud markdown haters, old and jaded and scarred by it not working for their weird usecase that one time), and you haven't suggested an alternative which addresses the problems they had with the mess caused by wysiwyg output. But maybe you have a better solution? Beyond the entitled expectation that it's someone elses job to fix it.
Also #6 of their manifesto is about interoperability. Markdown is a great choice for this if you are consistent in your approach. No lock in, human and readible.
What's holding the web back by 20 years are </closing tags>. If it wasn't for them, CMS would not have had to be invented, and everybody would be blissfully authoring effortlessly semantic hypertext like they do with Markdown now.
Heh, you're not wrong. I've thought for a while there should be some sort of valid, but easily hand-written version of HTML5 where any text between two newlines is considered a paragraph. That alone would go a long way to making HTML more text-editor friendly.
Other block-level elements would auto-close either at a new line or when a new block tag starts, headers would automatically create <sections> that end when a new header appears, and inline elements would end at the next space, newline or generic end tag like </>, so they could be nested.
A lot of this is done already in the browser. A valid HTML doc just needs a doctype, title and a body tag and the spec specifies all the rest will be filled in automatically. The spaghetti logic employed to add in missing closing tags to keep pages looking decent is mind boggling. Seems like there could be a few additional spec rules and then plain-text HTML would be just as easy to create as any other markup.
Rather than actually solve the problem of filtering WYSIWYG input/output, providing a solution for creating easy to create and maintain semantic HTML, Mozilla shunted it aside and now use a stack of custom tooling and libraries and yet another Markdown-alike variant text format with their own scripting embeds and then patted themselves on the backs for all the effort they "saved".
Mozilla is supposed to be the standard bearer for web standards. It's sad to see that bunch of myopic techies decided to go with a trendy solution that just trashed a core principle of the organization (#6) for one of its most important products. It set an example others are now following, and as a result, MDN put the web back probably two decades.