If it is worth keeping, save it in Markdown
-
The articles point was that markdown (or other similar utf-8 text based documents) is the best guarantee you have for the files being usable into the indefinite future. As you get into the complicated formats of things like word processors the less likely that format will be meaningfully usable in 10,20,50 years time, good luck reading a obsolete word processor file from the 80s to be read today.
Like I said, the files are in a standardized format. You can literally extract & view the content yourself. Do you want extensively structured data in 10, 20 or 50 years, or do you want only the most basic? If something is important enough for you to save for that long, you prob should put some effort into making it useful. I'm not saying word processors are perfect, but almost every markdown editor out there is essentially trying to recreate a word processor.
CommonMark includes like 6 levels of headings, blockquotes, code blocks, bold, italics, hyperlinks, HRs, and lists? At what cost though? Which heading is the title, which one is the subtitle? Now you want to add frontmatter, which is not part of the CommonMark spec. What if you don't want a thousand files, will your editor support multiple pages in a single file with multiple frontmatter declarations? Now you want a table, guess you're going to deviate to GFM. What if you want to use callouts, etc.
Things like Lexical is promising:
https://playground.lexical.dev
I'd rather have a single SQLite file that has my entire knowledgebase in a useful CMS than having a thousand markdown files that I have no clue what I titled them 10 or 20 years ago. So much easier to manage, rename things, etc.
-
WYSIWYG, Word Processors and CMSs are the kind of thing I don't even want for my current content (or any content I made in the last 25+ years), why would I want any of them as an archive format?
Why not just use plain text then? I mean if your important content can be summarized into the most basic structure, why not just create your own markup format that makes sense to you? Makes no sense why you'd limit yourself to CommonMark.
-
Obsidian has the ability to save web pages/selections now with Obsidian Web Clipper
I needed it to save as markdown from my phone.
-
The articles point was that markdown (or other similar utf-8 text based documents) is the best guarantee you have for the files being usable into the indefinite future. As you get into the complicated formats of things like word processors the less likely that format will be meaningfully usable in 10,20,50 years time, good luck reading a obsolete word processor file from the 80s to be read today.
LibreOffice opens my old WordPerfect documents just fine
-
I wholly disagree with this after using markdown for everything for a few reasons, but it may work for some people if you really love operating from a basic CLI. Some people also get by with storing everything in plain-text files as well. Why not, plain-text will still be supported as well.
Markdown, especially CommonMark, will likely never provide what you want. Is it convenient when you have hundreds or thousands of files to manually manage? Most likely you'll constantly be searching for ways to make markdown work more like a word processor, because what you really want is a powerful WYSIWYG content management database.
I'm not going to judge someone if they are content with basic markdown. It isn't my place to. But to make a statement like, "if it is worth keeping, save it in Markdown" is preaching from a bubble.
The important thing is that it needs to be in a human-readable format encoded as unicode text. Beyond that, any reasonable markup (plaintext, markdown, org-mode, HTML, etc.) is fine.
-
I needed it to save as markdown from my phone.
And the official Obsidian Web Clipper does just that. It saves the content to your vault as a markdown note.
-
Why not just use plain text then? I mean if your important content can be summarized into the most basic structure, why not just create your own markup format that makes sense to you? Makes no sense why you'd limit yourself to CommonMark.
Sure does; other people understand it too.
-
I wholly disagree with this after using markdown for everything for a few reasons, but it may work for some people if you really love operating from a basic CLI. Some people also get by with storing everything in plain-text files as well. Why not, plain-text will still be supported as well.
Markdown, especially CommonMark, will likely never provide what you want. Is it convenient when you have hundreds or thousands of files to manually manage? Most likely you'll constantly be searching for ways to make markdown work more like a word processor, because what you really want is a powerful WYSIWYG content management database.
I'm not going to judge someone if they are content with basic markdown. It isn't my place to. But to make a statement like, "if it is worth keeping, save it in Markdown" is preaching from a bubble.
The problem with Markdown is it kind of sucks. CommonMark didn't even defragment the markdown world, since there are numerous incompatible extensions. It seems like gfm is the best among them, or at least the most featureful.
I know there are other options like RST or AsciiDoc, but I don't know which among them is actually "the best."
-
This post did not contain any content.
No print it, everything digital needs a fairly complex machinery to work.
-
I migrated from mediawiki to markdown in git 8 years ago and never looked back. The ability to publish to any number of static site hosts, and use any number of editors, some that have preview mode, is rad. Data liberty, data portability, wide support, easy to convert, easy to grep, good enough for 95% of written notes.
My biggest gripe is poor support for tables of data.
Ugh tables are really the killer. If my editor doesn't support tables then I avoid them like the plague.
-
Sure does; other people understand it too.
Your kids in 20 years trying to find your will, will love you.
-
Handwritten HTML with limited tags works just as well for many purposes (just forbid div, span, and a few others and the complexity you see in most webpages evaporates). The important part is using a text-based format from which information can be extracted even if the fancier display protocols become obsolete.
Which is markdown
-
This post did not contain any content.
I like more Org Mode but I know that Markdown now is more universal. But... The best of both formatos is that I can use any plain text editor for read and editing it
-
Ugh tables are really the killer. If my editor doesn't support tables then I avoid them like the plague.
What do you mainly use that supports tables?
-
Which is markdown
Not really. HTML has a formal standard and definition that covers how to properly handle most corner cases that can arise when displaying it. Markdown has no overarching formal standard and exists in multiple dialects which are not always compatible with each other.
On the gripping hand, HTML involves more keystrokes (and technically speaking you need to include a bit of boilerplate in the file for it to be proper HTML). So it depends on whether you're willing to do a bit more typing to make sure that no one can possibly confuse your italics with boldface.
-
Not really. HTML has a formal standard and definition that covers how to properly handle most corner cases that can arise when displaying it. Markdown has no overarching formal standard and exists in multiple dialects which are not always compatible with each other.
On the gripping hand, HTML involves more keystrokes (and technically speaking you need to include a bit of boilerplate in the file for it to be proper HTML). So it depends on whether you're willing to do a bit more typing to make sure that no one can possibly confuse your italics with boldface.
Tags interfere with human readability. Open any markdown file with a text editor in plain text and you can basically read the whole thing as it was intended to be read, with possibly the exception of tables.
There's a time and a place for different things, but I like markdown for human readable source text. HTML might be standardized enough that you can do a lot more with it, but the source file itself generally isn't as readable.
-
This post did not contain any content.
That website was the fastest loading website I’ve ever visited.
-
What do you mainly use that supports tables?
I use obsidian. It have been pretty happy with it's table support lately. It used to be much worse.
-
And the official Obsidian Web Clipper does just that. It saves the content to your vault as a markdown note.
As far as I can tell this is a desktop plugin. On mobile it only brings across the plain text.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Interesting stuff, but my main takeaway is that very little of my output is worth keeping! (Who's going to need out-of-context Star Trek shitposts in 20 years?)
