Thread

you have a knack of picking cheesy and ironic names for things. just sayin

Asciidoctor is much more powerful and uniform than Nostrmarkup (that's what I call it). I just use NM for everything except 30041s and 30818s, where I use Asciidoctor and add in some Nostr-y stuff, like rendering npub handles. We only defined a handful of tags, for NM, and everyone has already gone off and implemented them differently. GitHub can enforce GH Markdown because they control the app its displayed in, and if you don't format it like they say, it looks garbled.

There is room for these formats to co-exist. For science, no doubt asciidoc is best. For the majority of devs, I feel markdown is a better choice to "just write down something I know". It supports basic formatting, tables, images, footnotes, code highlighting - at least for wikis. But for the normie pleb masses, to just share knowledge in a structured form, even markdown is too complicated, and a visual editor is needed for sure. I am now heading in the direction of using Nostr flavoured MarkDown as the default format and hoping to be able to extract GitLab's WYSWYG editor for visual edits: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/tree/master/spec/frontend/content_editor?ref_type=heads In the wiki I'll keep compatibility for the asciidoc format, for more scientific articles to be written. It will be configurable per article, and the app will have a global default format. cc nostr:npub1l5sga6xg72phsz5422ykujprejwud075ggrr3z2hwyrfgr7eylqstegx9z