I disagree, I’m not arguing against something, I’m pointing out some of the friction involved. Isn’t that consistent with the very nature of a forum like this? Otherwise, why ever share an opinion? I was careful to caveat so as not to apply my thoughts absolutely to everyone but I think I’m correct that MD does create friction for many people.
3 Likes
If it was stated along the lines of, “This is why Markdown does not work for me …” then I’d have no problem.
But statement like "People use markdown is because they want to render rich text " is either shoddy thinking or shoddy expression of one’s ideas. It has no nuance or apparently understanding of why others might prefer Markdown. And paints everyone with the same broad brush.
There are pros and cons to using Markdown, or any tool for that matter. Tradeoffs abound. Not understanding, or not being express one’s ideas in a way that recognizes differences among people, makes for poor discussions in any forum, let alone this one.
2 Likes
Relatively speaking, sure. But…I can read Markdown just fine without having to render it. And especially if you don’t know which medium it’s ultimately going to end up in (print, web, etc.) it’s useful to have it in a starting format that can go different directions. I can copy/paste rendered Markdown into Word if I need to mess with it more later, as Markdown renders into VERY SIMPLE HTML that Word doesn’t seem to have an issue with.
I mean…if Word is somebody’s jam, that’s cool. I really appreciate Word and Pages for print layout, what with all the visual styles and semantic markup that they allow.
But I don’t know why I would default to it for writing something that doesn’t usually even have to be formatted, other than some minor semantic convenience (headings, bullet points, etc.). Especially since that means I can’t use a bunch of other cool tools to work with it. And I write Markdown much faster than I can possibly format RTF in just about any app.
That doesn’t mean you’re wrong for using Word. It means that other people see something you rather clearly don’t. 
I would suggest that in the modern climate, “people who write for the web” aren’t that rare. And that’s actually the primary market the article above addresses explicitly.
If you start by formatting your document in Word, getting it to the web is not a fun process. Markdown is much simpler, as it just about can’t generate byzantine messes of HTML. I’ve seen over 150 characters of CSS to style a non-breaking space when copy/pasting from Word.
This is almost certainly why the author of that article is NOT advocating a desktop app like Word. It’s a more byzantine markup syntax for the web. @Bmosbacker, pretend you’re typing Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address into a paper you want to print. Here’s your paragraph styling syntax for what that author suggested:
{
"style": "normal",
"_type": "block",
"children": [
{
"_type": "span",
"marks": ["a-key", "emphasis"],
"text": "Fourscore and seven years ago..."
}
]
Again, I’m not begrudging anybody their tools of choice. Use whatever you want, and have fun with it.
If we’re arguing about the most rational markup syntax to use as the basis for a publishing platform on the modern web, Markdown is probably not the final answer. But Markdown could be rendered INTO whatever platform the “final answer” actually is, with relatively minimal programming.
But the author of the article isn’t making the point that’s currently being argued. No more than a 50% disapproval rating with a given political administration means that that 50% could agree on what to do to fix it.
4 Likes
Incidentally, this is Russ Ackoff writing in the late 70s. It’s amazing how little things have changed in the past four decades:
Those who have authority over others generally assume they understand the others and know their objectives. They are frequently wrong. Nevertheless, when unexpected and unintended consequences follow the implementation of a solution because of this type of error, those who made the error seldom question their understanding of others. Rather, the unexpected consequences are rationalized by attributing irrationality to the others. Whatever else such rationalization may do, it provides no better understanding of the others and thus does not lead to better solutions.
4 Likes
HTML and CSS are excellent ways to put words and graphics on a page. I have tried writing my notes using HTML formatting and, while I can do it, the process is not fun and the Note documents I’m left with are not sufficiently readable at a glance to my eye.
I find Markdown a pleasant waystation between plain unadorned text and the rich text provided by HTML formatting. And with the prevalence of good tools (for example, NotePlan, Byword, Marked, BBEdit, and EagleFiler) I can put together a workflow that meets my needs. That is all I have ever claimed.
4 Likes
I don’t have the technical expertise to assess markdown flavors and the impact of publishing on the web. I suspect, and I’ll leave it to experts like you, that markdown makes a lot of sense if the focus is on web publishing.
I should have made this clearer; I was thinking more in terms of general note taking and other writing (reports, essays, books, text for speaking at conferences, etc.), not publishing on the web. I suspect that in cases like I describe, rich text is a better option with far less friction and “fixing” to do. I speak as one who has competently (though probably not expertly) used Obsidian, iA Writer, and Ulysses for things like reports, essays, a book project, text for speaking at conferences, etc. I’ve found that I often need tables, footnotes, endnotes, outlines, bookmarks, attached documents (an example would be the bylaws so I can reference them during a meeting), etc. I have found rich text to be far easier to use, which is one reason I keep going back to Apple Notes for all my note taking and Word or Pages for most writing.
I’m not trying to start an argument, just sharing my perspective and my experience using markdown in Obsidian, iA Writer, and Ulysses. 
1 Like
Just to throw in a (philosophical) point:
Anyone can use any syntax or markup they want, for anything, and no-one has to try to understand anyone else’s use case or purpose for doing so
BUT
if you want to be able to have any sort of agreed standard (e.g. markdown, html, rtf, docx) then each will inevitably restrict what can be done, how easily and for what purposes. That’s what makes it a standard.
Standards are good. They allow us to share information, to use common tools without having to make our own and benefit from common understanding and the learning resources built on it. There’s little doubt that markdown has been stretched far beyond the purpose for which it was invented (to be a much simpler way of typing content for html pages) and there’s no way of avoiding the need to discuss the point at which stretching breaks it. It’s not about people telling others what they can and can’t do, but it’s the only way of reaching some sort of consensus about what makes the standard useful to its community.
That’s why open standards and software have traditionally been “forked”: if a group find a particular development of something useful enough, they make their own version of it, but they don’t usually claim that the fork is the same as the thing it forked from. Part of the confusion about markdown is that there is enough basic compatibility for people to complain about forks only when they break things.
5 Likes
Another part of the confusion about Markdown is that it is not a file format (like .rtf or .docx, for example). It is just plain text with some bare bones markup added to it.
2 Likes
Well that escalated quickly! 
Doesn’t Obsidian and Bear do this by default? Obsidian, according to a recent survey is one of the most used notes apps. I wonder how many markdown apps either render the formatting in the editor or provide a preview built into the app? This would certainly indicate that a large number of people want to render the markdown formatting syntax.
And yet no-one is forcing people to use ms word, but they have plenty to say about how terrible it is and they don’t encourage people to use it etc.
That is true and I apologise if I have offended anyone. I was making a simple observation. As soon as you add something to plaintext it isn’t plaintext. That’s not me making an absolute, but simply measuring things by text format standards. Plaintext is, well plaintext, markdown is plaintext+. So my comment above was not a universal absolute stating why people used markdown, but a simple observation that markdown, by the mere fact that it adds formatting to documents ceases to be plaintext.
Somebody has to keep the lights on.
2 Likes
Ok, then… what kind of wrench do I use to hammer in roofing nails?
9 Likes
Folks working in large and small corporations using Windows PCs and needing to collaborate with co-workers and clients might disagree with that statement.
2 Likes
Don’t know, don’t use Obsidian nor Bear.
large number != everyone. And while the number may be “large” the full population of Markdown users could be much larger.
This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what plaintext is.
The Markdown plaintext file can be converted to a non-plaintext format. The Markdown file remains plaintext.
Or are you arguing that HTML and CSS files are not plaintext? That programming source files are not plaintext? I doubt many would agree.
2 Likes
Which is why I was careful to say, “ want rich text and even those who like markdown, *** that the majority of people (who do not hang out in tech forums like this one usually but not always*, want to render final documents in some rich text format.”
Yep. I try, but do not always succeed (I am human after all (as far as you know anyway!)) to present my opinions as my opinion.
Because, YMMV!
Stay well.
1 Like
Indeed. Markdown, HTML, JSON, … LaTeX generate plain text files with styling markup exposed as plain text. As such, one can separate styling markup from text content just by using text editing operations. One must apply a “compiler” operation on such files to generate a view of the text content in its chosen style. MS Word and RTF are formats that generate a text + style file where the style markup is embedded in the file contents. The compiler operation to generate the view of text content in its chosen style is automatic. One must however apply an “extraction” operation to recover just the plain text.
–
JJW
1 Like
If it is any consolation, I have far bigger problems right now. I’m on vacation, a big hail storm came up and destroyed the windshield, moonroof, and put dents all over the car, which only as 10k miles on it. I’m in a rural area so I have to arrange towing to a dealership 4 hours away, arrange an Uber for the nearest renal car (two hours away), figure out what to do about the car and figure out how to get home. Not one of my better vacations.
2 Likes
Personally, I prefer large open-end wrenches - the 2" ones they use for things like tractor repair. Nice durability and wide, flat surfaces that work well for hammering. 
I know the process of acquiring a temporary car can feel invasive and uncomfortable, but I don’t know that I’d describe it as “renal”. 
3 Likes
I ask for traveling mercies to you and yours, grace from your insurer and bodyman and safety to and from wherever you have to go.
most sorry to see this happen to you.
2 Likes
Oh man, I needed a laugh!! 
Obviously I meant rental!!
2 Likes
Holy excrement!
I hope that is the end of any troubles on your trip!
Take care and be well.
1 Like