I find this article to be sort of ridiculous. Sure, some of the critiques about the various flavors of Markdown might be valid (but I would posit that for the non-technical users the author claims to be so concerned about, the chances of them regularly having to interact with more than one flavor (and no, Slack and Reddit don’t count), is extremely low), but the whole piece seems to be an advertisement for the author's company's JSON-based rich text specification, which couldn’t be further away from the point of Markdown if it tried.
Markdown is for writers. The fact that it has been adapted and forked and flavored into something that many developers like is wonderful. But it is fundamentally for writers. And I’ve taught dozens, if not hundredS, of “normies” to use Markdown when writing for the web over the last 15 years. Some of them have hated it — which is totally fine - but many more have appreciated being able to write readable content for the web without having to do it in the CMS, which is always, always, always, a flat-out terrible idea. Or the other alternative, which is write in Google Docs or Word or Notion or whatever and then paste it into the CMS for the hell that will ensue.
There is a certain irony in the author claiming to want to make a better authoring system for users, but only in a way that adds complexity, requires developers to build UIs around its spec, and has benefits that really only appeal to the people building the CMS or trying to sell people on why their version of TinyMCE is best (oh, but you have to build the TinyMCE UI yourself…this is just another overly-complicated JSON spec that really is provably only suited by whatever it is Sanity is trying to hawk).
Markdown isn’t perfect. And it doesn’t claim to be. But in terms of being a readable and easily usable way to write content for the web, it’s pretty damn great.
I'm kinda bummbed out that the post read as an ad. I was super nervous to publish this because it I knew I was poking at something that's near and dear to a lot of devs (myself included). But I have experienced enough friction with Markdown in the real world and wanted to explore poking what I see as the status quo. And it seems to have sparked some conversation, which was what I wanted. I'm truly not trying to “hawk” something, but I believe the thinking that went into Portable Text can provide value and I'm sort of putting it out there for people to make up their own minds.
To your point: I agree, Markdown is for writers, but only for some writers. Maybe I didn't get that across, but it is kinda amazing that it has become so ubiquotos in all its shapes and colors.
But it comes with these actual constrains and challenges that I feel a lot of developers aren't really being upfront or honest about. The simplicity comes with trade-offs that just adds complexity elsewhere. Either for people who don't desire to learn specialized syntax or developers who have to spend a lot of time figuring out how to parse it in a sensible manner to get their job done.
Thanks for taking the time to engage. And I want to be clear, I think Portable Text could be something really excellent for it’s intended use case. I guess I just see that as fundamentally at odds with what Markdown is. I understand your point that Markdown is often used in place it probably shouldn’t be, but I still think we’re talking about two different problems. For me, it isn’t that something like Portable Text doesn’t have a place, it’s that I don’t think it is best compared to something like Markdown.
I agree we should do a better job of showing what options are best for certain scenarios, but I feel like someone making a decision to adopt a really customized version of Markdown needs a different sort of intervention/push to a more desirable format (maybe Portable Text) than the people that actively choose Markdown BECAUSE it is a readable syntax for crafting HTML and their goal is to write HTML in a readable way.
Markdown is for writers. The fact that it has been adapted and forked and flavored into something that many developers like is wonderful. But it is fundamentally for writers. And I’ve taught dozens, if not hundredS, of “normies” to use Markdown when writing for the web over the last 15 years. Some of them have hated it — which is totally fine - but many more have appreciated being able to write readable content for the web without having to do it in the CMS, which is always, always, always, a flat-out terrible idea. Or the other alternative, which is write in Google Docs or Word or Notion or whatever and then paste it into the CMS for the hell that will ensue.
There is a certain irony in the author claiming to want to make a better authoring system for users, but only in a way that adds complexity, requires developers to build UIs around its spec, and has benefits that really only appeal to the people building the CMS or trying to sell people on why their version of TinyMCE is best (oh, but you have to build the TinyMCE UI yourself…this is just another overly-complicated JSON spec that really is provably only suited by whatever it is Sanity is trying to hawk).
Markdown isn’t perfect. And it doesn’t claim to be. But in terms of being a readable and easily usable way to write content for the web, it’s pretty damn great.