Just curious as to the user-breakdown
As an Evernote convert, my 20K notes are Formatted Note
Formatted Note is my choice
I’m comfortable accessing and modifying markup code but I prefer the code be hidden in general use
Just as PDF became the standard of its kind fairly early on; in part because Microsoft insisted in deviating from HTML standards, Markdown surely has a correspondingly bright future as a default.
An argument could be made for completely formless plain text, but there’d have to be headings, bolds and lists - at the least.
I might have said RTF until I upgraded to Big Sur to find that major bugs and crashes make TextEdit at best… unreliable.
imho HTML is still the format “future”, but I prefer WYSIWYG editing
(Markdown is a superset of HTML)
The poll results from a small sample indicates the preferred DT note format/editor is
. predominantly Markdown, followed by Rich Text
. Last place is shared by a tie between Formatted Note and Plain Text
Html is a descendant of SGML. It uses a completely different syntax then MD. It has a bunch of semantic elements missing in MD like nav, article, section. Not to mention elements like audio and video. It is built on the idea of a document object model of which MD has no idea at all.
Why exactly is MD a „superset“ of HTML?
MD is pure text. It can contain C- or AppleScript-Code, for example. Does that make it a superset of C or AppleScript?
The history and goals of MD and HTML are very different. I’m aware of the close relationship between them, but it’s just that - a close relationship. And historically, I think, MD had been invented because it was easier to write than HTML. Which would make it more of a sub- than a superset.
In formal logic a superset contains all the items in/attributes of the (subset) and more.
And a subset contains nothing which is not in its superset.
Given the differences in purpose, syntax and usage between HTML and MD, would is perhaps be a little more accurate to say that their sets (or attributes and capabilities) overlap and are related; but in no case is one congruent with the other, nor intended to be?
Thanks, @DTLow (with the fantastic owl) for promoting this discussion .