Vi har brug for et nyt dokumentmarkup-sprog - her er hvorfor

Introduktion: Hvad er problemet?

Der er allerede mange dokumentmarkup-sprog tilgængelige. Wikipedia viser over 70 variationer i sin liste over dokumentmarkup-sprog - blandt dem HTML, Markdown, Docbook, Asciidoctor, reStructuredText osv.

Hvorfor antyder titlen på denne artikel, at vi har brug for endnu en ???

Hvad er problemet?

Der er to grundlæggende problemer med de eksisterende dokumentmarkeringssprog: Enten er de ikke lette at bruge, eller de er ikke velegnede til at skrive komplekse dokumenter, såsom tekniske artikler, brugervejledninger eller bøger. Et eksempel på "ikke let at bruge, men velegnet til komplekse dokumenter" ville være Docbook. Et eksempel på "let at bruge, men ikke velegnet til komplekse dokumenter" ville være Markdown.

Ovennævnte kategorisering er selvfølgelig forenklet. Men det skal tjene som et godt udgangspunkt for at få kernen i denne artikel, der sigter mod at afgrænse den slags problemer, der opstår i praksis. Du får vist mange repræsentative eksempler på markeringskode, der illustrerer, hvad der er galt, suppleret med links til mere information.

Du opdager også et nyt markup-sprog. Mange eksempler vil demonstrere, hvordan en ny syntaks kan føre til et sprog, der er "let at bruge og velegnet til komplekse dokumenter". En proof-of-concept- implementering er allerede tilgængelig. Mere om dette senere.

Indledende bemærkninger

Bemærk venligst:

  • Denne artikel handler om dokumentmarkup-sprog, der bruges til at skrive tekstdokumenter , såsom bøger og artikler, der offentliggøres på nettet. Der er andre markup-sprog, der bruges til at beskrive specifikke data, såsom matematiske formler, billeder og geografiske oplysninger, men disse er uden for denne artikels anvendelsesområde. Imidlertid kan nogle ideer, der præsenteres i denne artikel, også anvendes på andre former for markup-sprog.
  • Denne artikel fokuserer udelukkende på syntaksen for markup-sprog. Vi diskuterer ikke andre aspekter, der også er vigtige i valget af et passende markup-sprog, såsom: support til dit operativsystem, nem installation og afhængigheder, den tilgængelige værktøjskæde til at oprette endelige dokumenter, kvaliteten af ​​dokumentation, pris, kunde / brugersupport osv.
  • Læsere af denne artikel skal have nogle grundlæggende erfaringer med et markup-sprog som HTML, Markdown, Asciidoctor eller lignende.
  • Læsere, som ikke er opmærksomme på de mange fordele ved dokumentmarkeringssprog, vil måske først læse:

    Fordele ved dokumentmarkeringssprog vs WYSIWYG-redaktører (tekstbehandlingsprogrammer)

Ulemper / del 1

Lad os først overveje nogle kendte markup-sprog og se på nogle ulemper.

HTML

HTML er Internets sprog. Så hvorfor ikke skrive alt i HTML? Årsagerne til at kassere denne mulighed er velkendte. Lad os hurtigt rekapitulere dem.

HTML er besværligt at skrive. Ingen ønsker at skrive XML-kode i hånden, selvom redaktører med HTML / XML-support måske kan hjælpe.

Nogle hyppige skriveopgaver kræver ikke-triviel HTML-kode.

Antag, at vi vil vise et vandret centreret billede med en simpel sort kant og et link. HTML-koden, som en uerfaren bruger kunne forvente at arbejde, kunne se sådan ud:

Men koden, han eller hun faktisk skal skrive, er besværlig, og der er forskellige måder at gøre det på. Her er en måde:

 

HTML mangler "produktivitetsfunktioner for forfattere", såsom:

  • Automatisk generering af en indholdsfortegnelse, indeks, ordliste osv.
  • Variabler, der bruges til at holde tilbagevendende værdier
  • Opdeling af et dokument i forskellige filer

Andre ulemper vises senere.

Markdown

Markdown er et meget populært, letvægts markup-sprog. Det er let at lære og bruge og velegnet til korte og enkle tekster, såsom kommentarer i fora, readme-filer osv.

Det lider dog af følgende problemer, der gør det uegnet til komplekse eller store dokumenter (f.eks. Tekniske artikler, brugervejledninger og bøger):

  • Den oprindelige Markdown, der er defineret af John Gruber, mangler mange funktioner, som forventes af forfattere, såsom tabeller (kun indlejrede HTML-tabeller understøttes), automatisk generering af indholdsfortegnelse, fremhævning af syntaks, opdeling af filer osv.
  • Der er ingen unik, entydig specifikation for Markdown. Der findes mange varianter af Markdown med forskellige regler og forskellige funktioner understøttet. Dette fører til inkompatibilitetsproblemer, når markeringskode deles. CommonMark er et forsøg på at løse dette problem. Specifikationen er imidlertid enorm og endnu ikke afsluttet (i skrivende stund er version 0.28, dateret 2017–08–01, den seneste).
  • Markdown har lignende problemer og begrænsninger som dem, der er vist senere i kapitel “Inconveniences / Part 2”. Disse mangler kan hurtigt blive en irritation, når du bruger Markdown til alt andet end korte, enkle tekster.

Her er en liste over artikler med mere information om Markdowns mangler:

  • Hvorfor du ikke skal bruge "Markdown" til dokumentation
  • Solnedgang ved Markdown?
  • Hvorfor Markdown ikke er mit yndlingssprog

Docbook

Docbook er et XML-baseret markup-sprog, der bruger semantiske tags til at beskrive dokumenter.

Det har sandsynligvis det mest komplette sæt funktioner blandt alle markup-sprog. Det er blevet brugt af mange forfattere, er forudinstalleret på nogle Linux-distributioner og understøttes af mange organisationer og udgivere. Docbook er med succes brugt til at oprette, udgive og udskrive mange store dokumenter af alle slags.

Men det har følgende ulemper:

Det bruger XML og en detaljeret syntaks. Se på følgende eksempel lånt fra Wikipedia:

 Very simple book  Chapter 1 Hello world! I hope that your day is proceeding splendidly!   Chapter 2 Hello again, world! 

Kunne du lide at skrive og vedligeholde en sådan kode?

Sammenlign nu ovenstående kode med den følgende, skrevet på et moderne markup-sprog som Asciidoctor:

= Very simple book== Chapter 1Hello world!I hope that your day is proceeding _splendidly_!== Chapter 2Hello again, world!

Docbook er også kompleks og derfor svært at lære og bruge.

Output produceret af Docbook, især HTML, ser gammeldags ud (se eksempler på dets hjemmeside). Naturligvis kan præsentation tilpasses, men det er ikke en let opgave.

LaTeX

LaTeX er et sæt af høj kvalitet. Det er meget brugt i den akademiske verden til at skabe videnskabelige dokumenter. Det anses for at være den bedste mulighed for at skrive PDF-dokumenter, der indeholder mange matematiske formler og ligninger.

Jeg har aldrig brugt LaTeX selv, fordi jeg ikke skriver videnskabelige dokumenter - bare artikler og bøger, der skal offentliggøres på nettet. Derfor vil jeg ikke kommentere det for meget. Det er dog vigtigt at nævne det på grund af dets popularitet i den akademiske verden.

LaTeXs unikke syntaks forekommer ordentligt for mig og lidt kompleks. Her er et forkortet eksempel fra Wikipedia:

\documentclass{article}\usepackage{amsmath}\title{\LaTeX}
\begin{document} \maketitle \LaTeX{} is a document preparation system ...
 % This is a comment \begin{align} E_0 &= mc^2 \\ E &= \frac{mc^2}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}} \end{align} \end{document}

Artiklen Konvertering fra (La) TeX til HTML siger, at konvertering af LaTeX-matematik til HTML er "en udfordring".

Nogle markup-sprog tillader, at LaTeX-uddrag integreres i deres markup-kode, hvilket kan være meget nyttigt, hvis du har brug for kraften fra LaTeX til matematik. Der er andre muligheder for at vise matematik på nettet, såsom Mathjax eller MathML (en ISO-standard og en del af HTML5).

Populær til store dokumenter

A impressive number of markup languages have emerged. Many of them use a syntax similar to Markup, and are therefore easy to learn and use. Some have more features than Markdown and are even extensible. However, as soon as we start writing complex documents, corner-cases and limits diminish the initial joy of using them.

Two popular markup languages used for big documents are Asciidoctor (an improved version of Asciidoc), and reStructuredText (an improved version of StructuredText). We will have a look at them soon.

Practical Markup Language (PML)

Before moving on to the most interesting part of this article, let me briefly introduce the new markup language I mentioned already in the introduction.

The language is called Practical Markup Language (PML).

“Tilpasse behovene i en bestemt situation på en nyttig måde; hjælper med at løse et problem eller vanskeligheder effektiv eller egnet ” - definition af 'praktisk' i Cambridge Dictionary

Jeg startede PML-projektet for et par måneder siden, fordi jeg ikke kunne finde et markup-sprog, der var let at bruge og velegnet til store, komplekse dokumenter, såsom en brugervejledning.

I det næste afsnit ser vi på eksempler på markeringskode skrevet i PML sammenlignet med kode skrevet på andre sprog. Så lad os først nævne to grundlæggende PML-syntaksregler, der er nødvendige for at forstå de kommende eksempler.

Et PML-dokument er et knudetræ (svarende til et XML / XHTML-dokument). Hver node starter med a {efterfulgt af et tagnavn. Hver node slutter med en }. En node kan indeholde tekst eller underordnede noder.

For example, here is a node containing text that will be rendered in italics:

{i bright}

This node starts with {i , and ends with }. i is the tag name. In this case i is an abbreviation for italic, which means that the node's content will be rendered in italics. The content of this node is the text bright. The above PML markup code will be rendered as:

bright

Some nodes have attributes, used to specify additional properties of the node (besides its tag name).

For example, the title of a chapter is defined with attribute title, as follows:

{chapter title=A Nice Surprise Once upon a time ...}

There is not much more to say about the basic concept of PML syntax. For more insight, and a description of features not used in this article, please consult the PML User Manual.

You can download and play around with a free implementation of PML. But please note: PML is a work in progress. There are missing features, you might encounter bugs, and backwards compatibility is currently not guaranteed.

I use PML myself to write all my web documents, such as this article. For links to more real-life examples please visit the FAQ.

Inconveniences / Part 2

I this section we’ll look at examples that reveal some problems encountered with markup languages. This is by no means an exhaustive enumeration of all troubles and corner cases. The aim is to just show a few examples that demonstrate the kind of inconveniences and limits encountered in the real world.

For each example the markup code will be shown in HTML, Asciidoctor, reStructuredText, and PML.

If you want to try out some code, you can use the following online testers (no need to install anything on your PC):

  • HTML
  • Asciidoctor
  • reStructuredText

An online tester for PML is not yet available. You have to install PML on a Windows PC if you want to try it out.

Font Styles

Font styles (italic, bold, monospace, etc.) are often used in all kinds of documents, so good support is essential.

But as we will see, surprises and limits can emerge, as soon as we have to deal with non-trivial cases. Let’s look at some examples to illustrate this.

Part of a Sentence in Italics

Suppose we want to write:

They called it Harmonic States, a good name.

This is a trivial case, and all languages support it.

HTML:

They called it Harmonic States, a good name.

Asciidoctor:

They called it _Harmonic States_, a good name.

reStructuredText:

They called it *Harmonic States*, a good name.

PML:

They called it {i Harmonic States}, a good name.

Part of a Word in Italics

We want to write:

She unwrapped the challenge first.

HTML:

She unwrapped the challenge first.

Asciidoctor:

She __un__wrapped the challenge first.

Note that we have to use two underscores. Using a single underscore (as in the first example), would result in:

She _un_wrapped the challenge first.

reStructuredText:

She *un*\wrapped the challenge first.

Note that the letter w has to be escaped (preceded by a backslash) for reasons explained here. If the letter is not escaped then a warning is displayed and the result is:

She *un*wrapped the challenge first.

PML:

She {i un}wrapped the challenge first.

Text in Bold And Italic

We want to write:

They were all totally flabbergasted.

HTML:

They were all totally flabbergasted.

Asciidoctor:

They were all *_totally flabbergasted_*.

reStructuredText:

Combining bold and italic is not supported in reStructuredText, but there are some complicated workarounds.

PML:

They were all {b {i totally flabbergasted}}.

Real-Life Example

Here is an example inspired by an Asciidoctor user who asked how to display:

_idoptional.

Let’s make the exercise a little bit more interesting by also displaying:

_idoptional.

HTML:

_idoptional_idoptional

No surprise here. It just works as expected.

Asciidoctor:

Intuitive attempt:

*_id* _optional___id_ *optional*

The first line doesn’t work, it produces:

id _optional

However, the second line works, which is a bit counterintuitive.

If normal text includes a character that is also used for markup (in our case the _ preceding id), then the character must be escaped. This is a fundamental rule in pretty much all markup languages. For example in HTML a < must be escaped with <. Many languages (including Asciidoctor and PML) use a backslash prefix (e.g. \r) to escape. So let's rewrite the code:

*\_id* _optional__\_id_ *optional*

This doesn’t work in Asciidoctor. It produces

_id _optional_

and

\_id optional

Here is a correct version, as suggested in an answer to the user’s question:

*pass:[_]id* _optional__pass:[_]id_ *optional*

Another answer suggests this solution:

*_id* __optional_____id__ *optional*

More edge case are documented in chapters Unconstrained formatting edge cases and Escaping unconstrained quotes of the Asciidoctor User Manual.

reStructuredText:

**_id** *optional**_id* **optional**

There is no problem here, because the character _ is not used in reStructuredText to define markup.

However, suppose we wanted to write:

*id**optional*.

Here is the code:

*\*id\** ***optional***

Note that the *s in id must be escaped, but the *s in optional don't need to be escaped.

PML:

{b _id} {i optional}{i _id} {b optional}

Nested Font Styles

Nested font styles of the same kind (e.g. .........) occur rarely in text written by humans, but they could be more or less frequent in auto-generated markup code. If they are not supported then the tool that generates the markup code becomes more complicated to implement, because it must track the font styles that are active already, in order to avoid nesting them.

So, how is this supported in the different languages?

HTML:

This is excellent, isn't it?

No problem, it produces

This is excellent, isn’t it?

Asciidoctor:

_This is _excellent_, isn't it?_

The above code is obviously ambiguous: Are the italics nested or do we want to italicize “This is “ and “, isn’t it?”. When I tested it, the result was neither of it:

This is _excellent, isn’t it?_

As far as I now, Asciidoctor doesn’t support nested font styles of the same kind.

reStructuredText:

The reStructuredText specification states: “Inline markup cannot be nested.” However, no error is displayed if it is nested, and the result is unspecified.

PML:

{i This is {i excellent}, isn't it?}

Font styles of the same kind can be nested in PML. The above code results in:

This is excellent, isn’t it?

Nested Chapters

Suppose we are writing an article titled “New Awesome Product” that contains four chapters. The structure looks as follows:

New Awesome Product Introduction More features Faster Less resources

Later on we decide to insert chapter “Advantages” as a parent of the three last chapters. The structure now becomes:

New Awesome Product Introduction Advantages More features Faster Less resources

What are the changes required in the markup code to pass from version 1 to version 2? Can we simply insert the code for a new chapter? Let’s see.

HTML:

Note: Code changes are displayed in bold.

As shown above, besides inserting the new chapter, we have to change the markup for the three child chapters: h2 must be changed to h3.

Asciidoctor:

Again, we have to change the markup for the three child chapters: == must be changed to ===

Note: The blank lines between the chapters are required, otherwise the document is not rendered correctly.

reStructuredText:

The markup for the three child chapters must be changed: All occurrences of = must be changed to -

The non-trivial rules for reStructuredText’s sections can be looked up here.

PML:

In PML, there is no need to change the code of the three child chapters.

Bottom Line:

In all languages, except PML, the markup code of all child chapters must be adapted if a parent chapter is inserted.

This is not a deal-breaker in case of small articles with few chapters. But image you are writing your next big article or book with lots of chapters and frequent changes. Now, the necessity to manually update child chapters can quickly turn into a daunting, boring, and error-prone task.

Note: Asciidoctor provides a leveloffset variable that can be used to change the level of chapters. This might be useful in some cases, but it also creates additional unneeded complexity, as can be seen here and here.

A more serious kind of problem can arise in the following situation: Imagine a set of different documents that share some common chapters. To avoid code duplication, the common chapters are stored in different files, and an insert file directive is used in the main documents. This works fine as long as the levels of all common chapters are the same in all documents. But troubles emerge if this is not the case.

It is also worth to mention that HTML, Asciidoctor and reStructuredText don’t protect us against wrong chapter hierarchies. For example, you don’t get a warning or error if a chapter of level 2 contains a direct child chapter of level 4.

In a language like PML, the above problems simply don’t exist, because the level is not specified in the markup code. All chapters (of any level) are defined with the same, unique syntax. The chapters’ tree structure (i.e. the level of each chapter) is automatically defined by the parser. And wrong hierarchies in the markup code, such as a missing } to close a chapter, are flagged by an error message.

Lists

In Asciidoctor the kind of problems we have seen with chapter hierarchies can also arise with list hierarchies (e.g. lists that contain lists). The reason is the same as for chapters: Asciidoctor lists use different markup code to explicitly specify the level of list items (* for level 1, ** for level 2, etc.). Moreover, there are a number of complications you have to be aware of when working with complex list content.

In reStructuredText, nested lists are created using indentation and blank lines. This works fine for simple nested lists, but creates other problems in more complex cases (not discussed here). Using whitespace (e.g. blank lines and indentation) to define structure in markup code is a bad idea, as we’ll see soon.

I HTML og PML findes ovenstående problemer ikke med lister, fordi syntaksen for forælder- og underknudepunkter er den samme.

Mellemrum og indrykning

Først ved hjælp af mellemrum til at definere struktursømme som en god idé. Se på følgende eksempel:

parent child 1 child 2

Strukturen er meget let at læse og skrive. Ingen støjende specielle markeringstegn er nødvendige.

Det er derfor fristende for designere af markeringssprog at bruge mellemrum som en enkel måde at definere struktur på. Desværre fungerer dette kun godt for enkle strukturer og har andre ulemper, vi snart vil se.

Derfor skal der anvendes en enkel, men vigtig regel på markup-sprog, der er designet til at fungere godt med komplekst indhold:

"Hvidt mellemrum ændrer ikke dokumentets struktur eller semantik." - blank plads-ubetydelig-regel

Hvad betyder det?

First, let us define whitespace: Whitespace is any set of one or more consecutive spaces, tabs, new lines, and other Unicode characters that represent space.

In our context, the above rule means that:

Within text, a set of several (i.e. more than one) whitespace characters is treated the same as a single space character.

For example, this code:

a beautiful flower

… is identical to this one:

a beautiful flower

Between structural elements, a set of whitespace characters is insignificant.

For example, this code:

… is identical to this one:

A special case of whitespace is indentation (leading whitespace at the beginning of a line). The above rule implies that indentation is insignificant too. Indentation doesn’t change the result of the final document.

Applying the whitespace-insignificant rule is important, because it leads to significant advantages:

  • There is no need to learn, apply and worry about complex whitespace rules (see examples below).

    Violating the whitespace-insignificant rule in a markup specification adds unneeded complexity, and can lead to markup code that is ugly, error-prone, and difficult to maintain, especially in the case of nested lists.

  • Whitespace can freely be used by authors to format the markup code in a more understandable, presentable and attractive way (pretty printing). For example, lists (and lists of lists) can be indented to display their structure in a visually clear and maintainable way, without the risk of changing the underlying structure.
  • Text blocks can be copy/pasted without the need to adapt whitespace.
  • If shared text blocks (stored in different files) are imported into several documents with different structures, there is no risk of changing or breaking the structure.
  • There is no unexpected or obscure behavior if the whitespace is not visible for human readers. Some examples:

    - a mixture of whitespace characters, such as spaces and tabs, especially when used to indent code

    - whitespace at the end of a line

    - whitespace in empty lines

    - visually impaired (blind) people who can’t read whitespace

    Note: To alleviate the pain, some editors provide a display-whitespace mode.

  • Tools that generate markup code, as well as markup parsers are generally easier to create.
  • In some situations it is useful to reduce whitespace to a minimum (e.g. no new lines), in order to save storage space and improve performance.

If you want a few examples demonstrating the kind of technical problems that arise if whitespace is significant, you can read:

  • What are the downsides to whitespace indentation rather than requiring curly braces?
  • F# syntax: indentation and verbosity
  • Issue in nodeca/js-yaml

So, how is whitespace handled in the languages we are discussing in this article?

HTML:

HTML applies the whitespace-insignificant rule.

For a thorough explanation, look at this excellent article written by Patrick Brosset: When does white space matter in HTML?.

Asciidoctor:

In Asciidoctor, whitespace is significant in some cases.

This can lead to surprising behavior and problems with no easy or no satisfying solution. Some examples can be seen here and here.

reStructuredText:

reStructuredText has whitespace rules that are ‘a bit surprising’.

For example, writing *very* results in very (text in italics, as expected). However, * very* results in * very* (no italics!), because of the whitespace preceding "very". To understand why, the answer might be found in chapter Whitespace of the specification.

PML:

Similar to HTML, PML applies the whitespace-insignificant rule.

There is one exception: For practical reasons, a blank line between two text blocks results in a paragraph break. This means that instead of writing:

{p text of paragraph 1}{p text of paragraph 2}

… we can simply write:

text of paragraph 1text of paragraph 2

Note: Sometimes, whitespace is significant in text. For example whitespace must be preserved in source code examples. Or, in verbatim text, several consecutive spaces or new lines must be preserved in the final document. All languages support this. However, in reStructuredText it’s not always obvious how to it, as shown here.

Other Inconveniences

As seen already, some markup languages systematically use opening and closing tags. An example would be <;i>; and in HTML. All XML-based languages, as well as PML belong to this class of languages.

Without digging into details, here are some drawbacks that can occur in languages that do not (or not always) use pairs of distinct opening/closing tags (e.g. Markdown, Asciidoctor, and reStructuredText):

Editor support

Creating good, reliable editor support is more difficult to develop. Examples of useful editor features are:

  • syntax highlighting for markup code
  • markup code completion
  • visualizing pairs of block start/end marks (e.g. { and its corresponding })
  • block collapsing/expanding

    In the case of languages that use distinct opening/closing tags, the two last features work out-of-the-box in some editors. For example, PML uses { and } for node boundaries. This is also used in many programming languages (C, Java, Javascript, etc.) and therefore block features implemented for programming languages will also work for PML.

Document validation

Fewer syntax and structure errors can be detected automatically. This can lead to more time spent on debugging documents. Or, even worse, there might be silently ignored errors that end up in wrong output (Did I really fail to spot the missing warning block on page 267 of my 310 pages book?).

Parsers

It is more difficult to create parsers (i.e. programs that read markup code) that work well in all cases. If different parsers read the same markup code, there is an increased risk of getting different results for corner-cases.

Auto-generated markup code

Tools that generate markup code programmatically are more difficult to create. For example, if whitespace is significant, or font styles cannot be nested, then additional state must be updated and tracked, in order to respect these rules.

My Own Experience

When I started writing technical documents a few years ago, I used Docbook. It took me some time to learn it, but after that I never stumbled on anything I couldn’t do. Docbook is powerful. However, I disliked typing verbose XML code. I tried some XML editors, but gave up. Finally I just wrote complete text blocks unformatted in Notepad++, and then adorned the text with the necessary markup code. It was frustrating and time-consuming. Moreover, I couldn’t find a stylesheet that produced good-looking web documents, and I didn’t have the patience, motivation, and experience to fiddle around with big, complex CSS files and adapt them.

Later on I discovered Asciidoctor. What a relief. Everything was so much simpler and the web documents were beautiful, out of the box. Asciidoctor’s documentation is great, and I think the community is helpful and active. However, when I started to write more complex and bigger documents, I had to deal with problems similar to those described in the previous sections. At one point, I had to develop a specific pre- and post-processor to solve a problem for which I couldn’t find a solution in Asciidoctor/Gitbook.

An intriguing question emerged: “Why do these problems not exist in Docbook?”.

To make a long story short, I concluded that we need a new markup syntax. The key points to success would be:

  • easy to learn: few, simple, consistent and predictable rules (no exceptions)
  • easy to write and read
  • well-structured documents with no ambiguities
  • powerful enough to create big, complex documents without the need for “special rules, tricks, or workarounds”

After a period of investigating, pondering, programming, testing and improving, the Practical Markup Language (PML) was born. Since then, I never looked back again. Today I write all my web documents in PML (including this article).

Of course, when I started to create PML, it was to cover my own needs. So, I am probably biased. Hopefully this article contains enough factual examples, but I encourage you to leave a comment if you see anything wrong, unfair, or missing. I appreciate constructive feedback of any kind, and I will update the article if needed.

Conclusion

As demonstrated in this article, a good number of problems encountered with existing document markup languages vanish with the PML syntax.

Now we should come together to improve PML and make it more powerful, so that it covers more use cases and more people can benefit from it.

Please help to spread the word. Or try out PML and send feedback, so that we know what needs to be refined. Your voice counts!

The vision is to create the best possible document markup language and all necessary tools, so that writers can focus on writing and enjoy creating beautiful documents in a minimum of time — without worrying about unneeded complexity.





#####