Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I guess the only downside is that if your client has NoScript, they just see the raw Markdown. With HTML if the client has a text based browser things like links, images, etc will still work. I still use Lynx over SSH if I need to grab paywalled content from my work machine or check something on the local intranet when I'm out of the office.

The text based browser is splitting hairs, but NoScript isn't. Unless there are browsers that will natively render Markdown if served/detected (i.e. not a plugin)?



You could see that as an upside - Markdown is designed to be human-readable and is pretty successful in that design goal. So a NoScript user will see a rather nice plaintext.


uhhh, Markdown is "nicely" formatted for geeks, and is great for easing the burden of content creation.

however My mom (and I imagine any non-geek) would have trouble reading the hyperlink format, and be completely confused by the strong vs italics, code, or block quote sections of Markdown.


Maybe this is just geek privilege talking here, but I think that emphasis and block quotes in markdown are perfectly legible.

The link format is weird (and I never remember how to type it), but I feel like it's not too cryptic.


Only geeks really use NoScript. Or people who know geeks that put NoScript on their computer. NoScript breaks many non-geek websites as it is, and they have to have geek skill to fix those breakages.


Remember that we're talking about markdown being shown to people with noscript, something I highly doubt non-geeks are using.


Wouldn't it also be shown to people who merely have Javascript disabled?


> I guess the only downside is that if your client has NoScript, they just see the raw Markdown.

Correct, which is pretty awful.

But, curiously, 100% better than any other 'static site' solution I've seen here.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: