Skip to main content

Markdown vs HTML

Markdown converts to HTML. It’s designed to do that. But it’s drastically simpler in form than HTML. What if we could replace HTML altogether?
Right now, Markdown is built to support HTML directly. So to support Markdown is to support all of HTML as well. What if we just remove the HTML support and build Markdown as the language the browser understands natively?
Benefits:
  • Markdown is far easier to read than HTML.
  • It’s far faster to parse, no open/close tags.
  • Smaller file size; since there are no open/close tags.
Tying in with the proposal to code in English, Markdown would provide a familiar, written form to compliment the English language.

CSS and JavaScript

Both CSS and JavaScript can be included using code blocks.
  body { background: white;}

  console.log('This will be executed.');

Further Consideration

Various projects already exist to simplify use of Markdown either within HTML or by using an HTML page for boilerplate and Markdown file(s) for content.
Consider this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18154825
GitDown was designed to do roughly the same thing. There are others as well. But like GitDown, Markdown page simplifies everything to the point that forking the repo on GitHub and then editing the relevant Markdown file(s) results in a ready-made web page.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Everything Text

Pixel and vectors, video and text. What if we built one editor that could handle all these cases and more? One editor using one human-readable text format for files. If we use Markdown, we can use code blocks to represent binary data, if needed. Besides being able to store binary data, we could create human-readable data sections using formats like Eno. We could even include executable code.  With the flexibility of Markdown and its respective code blocks, we could store any type of data in a manageable way. So the file format for our all-purpose editor is plain text, Markdown.

We'll build our editor for text processing. But from the start, we must account for all editing needs. We're building a text editor that can do what Photoshop does, and what Premiere does. So first and foremost, everything those editors can do, our editor must be able to do using plain text. From there, we can create intuitive graphic interfaces to facilitate different workflows. Those UIs will basicall…
Post a Comment
Read more

Compile CSS

CSS is arguably the best means of UI customization.

Consider an example of graphic-editing of UI elements:
https://initialaudio.com/how-to-skin-sektor/

Using CSS, all elements in that project could potentially be done without graphics.
Prospractically all designers now know CSSit's vastly capable Conscan't really decouple CSS from HTML whereas HTML is the biggest performance bottleneck (we'll solve this using different means) The Problem Unfortunately, CSS can get incredibly bulky. So what if we could design using CSS in a way that could feasibly be compiled to a local app?

In general, everything would be styled using CSS, in the same bulky way it exists in browsers. But when compiled, it's no longer bulky.
Benefitswe have the full flexibility of CSS for all appswe have the full speed of native apps if needed
Post a Comment
Read more

OpenGL Everything

Recent terminals like Alacritty and Kitty have proved OpenGL is the fastest way to handle text rendering. Xray, the potential next generation of Atom text editor rightly seems to follow suit. Meanwhile, Linux distros like Ubuntu have long been using OpenGL for general rendering to great success as seen with compositors like Compiz.It seems OpenGL might be the best technology for any and all rendering needs. If an OS is built on and uses OpenGL for everything, the consistency could yield great results. Text editing, image manipulation and even office apps would be as fast as possible.
Post a Comment
Read more