I just wanted to announce the initial (alpha) release of a Ruby
implementation of Markdown, which is a text-to-HTML conversion tool for
web writers, similar to Textile. It borrows the interface from and is
inspired by Why the Lucky Stiff’s “RedCloth” library, which is a Ruby
implementation of Textile, and is intended to be used as a drop-in
replacement for it when one wishes to use Markdown syntax instead.
Nice, I’d just run upon Markdown a few days ago and immediately wondered
when someone would do a Ruby version So am I right in thinking
this would plug into Instiki pretty readily?
Jim
Michael Granger wrote:
Hi all,
I just wanted to announce the initial (alpha) release of a Ruby
implementation of Markdown, which is a text-to-HTML conversion tool for
web writers, similar to Textile. It borrows the interface from and is
…
lovely, thanks for this. I just noticed this project on rubyforge and
suddenly a message popped here
And funny name too :), now we just miss a SnakeCloth ( reST parser)
···
il Wed, 14 Apr 2004 23:07:29 +0900, Michael Granger ged@FaerieMUD.org ha scritto::
Hi all,
I just wanted to announce the initial (alpha) release of a Ruby
implementation of Markdown, which is a text-to-HTML conversion tool for
web writers, similar to Textile.
Yes. I’m actually doing so for a local Instiki I’ve been playing around
with. It requires a bit more work than I’d hoped because Instiki
assumes a few things about the syntax of the page source that aren’t
true of Markdown, but they’re pretty easy changes, I think.
If I get things working well enough, I’ll contribute a patch back to
Instiki for it.
···
On Apr 14, 2004, at 7:47 AM, Jim Moy wrote:
Nice, I’d just run upon Markdown a few days ago and immediately
wondered when someone would do a Ruby version So am I right in
thinking this would plug into Instiki pretty readily?
I was going to write something like this when I got free time next.
Looks like I was beaten to the punch on a great idea. (Markdown gets
marks for this: It’s captured a lot of mindshare in a hurry!)
Ari
···
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 11:47:18PM +0900, Jim Moy wrote:
Nice, I’d just run upon Markdown a few days ago and immediately
wondered when someone would do a Ruby version So am I right in
thinking this would plug into Instiki pretty readily?
It’s already complete implementation-wise, as far as I know, but it
could use some usage-level testing. I’m integrating it with several of
my own projects, but have yet to really hammer on it to any great
degree.
Several people have mentioned that they were possibly interested in
contributing features, and a few have already sent patches, but if you
or anyone else has ideas about how it could be better, then I’m
interested in hearing those, too.
···
On Apr 14, 2004, at 4:00 PM, John W. Long wrote:
Wow! I was working on my own translation. And I had wanted to make it
work
like RedCloth. Need any help with it?
Nice, I’d just run upon Markdown a few days ago and immediately
wondered when someone would do a Ruby version So am I right in
thinking this would plug into Instiki pretty readily?
Yes. I’m actually doing so for a local Instiki I’ve been playing around
with. It requires a bit more work than I’d hoped because Instiki
assumes a few things about the syntax of the page source that aren’t
true of Markdown, but they’re pretty easy changes, I think.
If I get things working well enough, I’ll contribute a patch back to
Instiki for it.
Please do!
I really like Markdown and Instiki and I look forward to using them
together.
It works very nicely with RubLog too! Nice simple stuff!
Chad
···
On 14/4/2004, at 11:54 AM, Michael Granger wrote:
On Apr 14, 2004, at 7:47 AM, Jim Moy wrote:
Nice, I’d just run upon Markdown a few days ago and immediately
wondered when someone would do a Ruby version So am I right in
thinking this would plug into Instiki pretty readily?
Yes. I’m actually doing so for a local Instiki I’ve been playing
around with. It requires a bit more work than I’d hoped because
Instiki assumes a few things about the syntax of the page source that
aren’t true of Markdown, but they’re pretty easy changes, I think.
If I get things working well enough, I’ll contribute a patch back to
Instiki for it.
Oh, please do. Florian Gloss contributed proper getopts support, which
will be released shortly. This should make it easier to control the
syntax engine. The default will stay on RedCloth, but it’s great to
allow for other syntaxes as well as a startup option.
Which assumptions about syntax are holding you back?
If I get things working well enough, I’ll contribute a patch back to
Instiki for it.
Oh, please do. Florian Gloss contributed proper getopts support, which
will be released shortly. This should make it easier to control the
syntax engine. The default will stay on RedCloth, but it’s great to
allow for other syntaxes as well as a startup option.
Should be quite easy to do: The only line referencing RedCloth is in
revisions.rb.
The bigger question is whether to include both libraries, but I think
that can safely be answered with ‘yes’. (Another 29 KB shouldn’t be
exactly critical.)
Should be quite easy to do: The only line referencing RedCloth is in
revisions.rb.
The bigger question is whether to include both libraries, but I think
that can safely be answered with ‘yes’. (Another 29 KB shouldn’t be
exactly critical.)
Yearh, definitely. I think it could be pretty cool to have RDoc syntax
as well. That way you could very easily copy/paste a bunch of code
comments into a wiki and edit it from there. Oh and of course also use
that for any wiki if you were so inclined.
Should be quite easy to do: The only line referencing RedCloth is in
revisions.rb.
The bigger question is whether to include both libraries, but I think
that can safely be answered with ‘yes’. (Another 29 KB shouldn’t be
exactly critical.)
Yearh, definitely. I think it could be pretty cool to have RDoc syntax
as well. That way you could very easily copy/paste a bunch of code
comments into a wiki and edit it from there. Oh and of course also use
that for any wiki if you were so inclined.
Or even better allow the user to run multiple filters on the markup. Drop
filters in a filters folder and instantly you have access to different kinds
of markup. You could have check boxes for the filters you want to run on a
per post basis along with the ability to set the defaults.
This is the approach rublog takes with its Convertors. Works very
nicely.
Chad
···
On 15/4/2004, at 7:31 PM, John W. Long wrote:
In reference to Instiki:
----- “David Heinemeier Hansson” wrote: -----
Should be quite easy to do: The only line referencing RedCloth is in
revisions.rb.
The bigger question is whether to include both libraries, but I think
that can safely be answered with ‘yes’. (Another 29 KB shouldn’t be
exactly critical.)
Yearh, definitely. I think it could be pretty cool to have RDoc syntax
as well. That way you could very easily copy/paste a bunch of code
comments into a wiki and edit it from there. Oh and of course also use
that for any wiki if you were so inclined.
Or even better allow the user to run multiple filters on the markup.
Drop
filters in a filters folder and instantly you have access to different
kinds
of markup. You could have check boxes for the filters you want to run
on a
per post basis along with the ability to set the defaults.
Or even better allow the user to run multiple filters on the markup.
Drop
filters in a filters folder and instantly you have access to different
kinds
of markup. You could have check boxes for the filters you want to run
on a
per post basis along with the ability to set the defaults.
I like the simplicity of dropping in a file and having that syntax
available, but I’m hesitant to add filter controls to the in-wiki
interface. It’s one thing that the command-line options are growing,
another to complicate what’s facing the wiki user.
So I see options like markup choices and the like to lie with the wiki
administrator.
So am I right in thinking