Discussion for Please Stop with the HTML Replacementshttp://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2520#CommentsDiscussion for Please Stop with the HTML Replacementsen-usMon, 19 Mar 2018 07:01:32 -0000 by Jeremy Bowers http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2520#comment57<p>Yeah, my care level on that is pretty low. I think I'll just shut them down for now. Consider the <a href='http://reddit.com/r/programming/info/6jjtp/comments/'>reddit discussion</a> official.</p> http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2520#comment57 by Jeremy Bowers http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2520#comment56<p>Point.</p> <p>Consider it limited to cases where it's being used to replace HTML only; I probably shouldn't remove that now.</p> http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2520#comment56 by William McVey http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2520#comment55<p>Weird. I got a Javascript error when I first tried posting this and got no indication that it was posted, so I submitted the version that is shown below. Something certainly looks broken on the comment acceptance side of your blog.</p> http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2520#comment55 by William McVey http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2520#comment53<p>This is also just about HTML replacements; using a single representation that goes out to many things, of which HTML is just one, is a whole different story altogether.</p> <p>and yet you list reStructuredText iny your critique of markup languages. reStructuredText does support an HTML output format, but other output formats, such as DocBook, LaTeX, and just regular ole Text Files. The intent of at least for reST was not to build a markup that was easier to write HTML with, but to write an extensible markup language that could convey semantics to documents without constructing a unique document types. In other words, they weren't trying to build an easier HTML, they were trying to build a more intelligent TXT.</p><p></p> http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2520#comment53 by Ashground http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2520#comment52<p>Two comments -</p> <p>While HTML is fine, nobody should be using <code>&lt;i&gt;</code> or <code>&lt;b&gt;</code>. If you want to advocate the use of HTML, you might want to make sure the HTML you're advocating is valid.</p> <p>Also, I'd kill myself if every time I wanted to write <code>&lt;em&gt;</code> on my blog I had to write <code>&amp;lt;em&amp;gt;</code>... or the fact that in order to write that last bit, I had to write <code>&lt;code&gt;&amp;amp;lt;em&amp;amp;gt;&lt;/code&gt;</code>.</p> http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2520#comment52