Ralph Corderoy <ra...@inputplus.co.uk> wrote: |> The project on github: https://github.com/cloutiy/tml |> Extensive documentation on its wiki: https://github.com/cloutiy/tml/wiki | |Interesting, and I'll look more when I've time. | |> Inline formatting has a nice clean syntax that resembles HTML, but |> much cleaner - you just need 1 closing tag. |... |> Here is some <b<bold text>. |> Here is some <i<italic text>. |> Here is some <smallcaps<small cap text>. |... |> Here is <bold, size +2<bold and larger text> | |I struggle to read the <b<bold text> syntax though, and I suspect enough |non-programmers have been exposed to HTML-like syntax in forum software, |etc., that they to are used to <> balancing. Editors may also provide |"matching bracket" functionality for <>, as with [], etc. Were syntaxes |like | | Here is some <b:bold text>. | Here is some <i:italic text>. | Here is some <smallcaps:small cap text>. | Here is <bold, size +2:bold and larger text> | |considered, with the first colon marking the separation? | | <b:Bold and <i:bold-italic>> text.
Or plain SGML that i think could use <tagname/almost any text you like/. I think plain SGML is still an interesting language, much better than what XML made of it. And then i, for one, don't want yet another so-called plain text markup language. There is rst, asciidoc, markdown, whatever, a bit more taggy is perl's POD and many more. I think pimping one of those as a base is more likely to be useful. I had a time when i liked rst, but pimping POD is possibly nicer given how rst looks if you start real work with progamming stuff etc. And then a nicely reduced ROFF (TeX, too) set of macros does look very clean! If it only could act as a base for other document formats... Ciao, and have a nice weekend! --steffen
