If you can get a new Markdown flavor, what new features you wish it would have that you miss in regular Markdown?

For me, as I wish for markdown that work for blogposts, notes and knowledge management, technical and academic writings and long form writing aka ebooks, I miss a lot in markdown.

For me. The most thing I miss about markdown is styling the text. I can’t style it the way I would with dedicated editors for technical and academic writings and long form writing (aka ebooks) editors.

[-] I can’t position the images|charts|figures in a place I want, like a long side the text or in other difficult positions, like the way magazines or academic journal can do.
[-] I can’t use different fonts for different lines.
[-] I can’t colorize the text
[-] I can’t change the image sizes
[-] the Damn Citations issues
[-] autocomplete for Citations
[-] WYTIWYG when printing to PDF, markdown doesn’t support pagination, good luck with getting what you want in PDF form.
[-] text position and direction, just click where I want and start typing. it’s 2022 why we still in the 2002? I wish to do my title the way I can with latex.

For me this features is what I wish for in a new Markdown flavor. what about you?

Markdown was created to make blog writing easier. Before Markdown everything had to be written in HTML. CSS came along to format HTML (and markdown). Check out the rabbit hole that is CSS :slight_smile: Plain Text is designed to be accessible on all platforms. What you are looking for is an academic word processor like Mellel (https://www.mellel.com) or an RTF program. Most PDF programs will accept markdown as input. Markdown will remain a plain text enhancing program.

2 Likes

I don’t see how you can achieve this with any legitimate extension of markdown. But markdown is old and not designed for the uses you describe. Some of what you want could be achievable through a new plaintext language, but establishing it would be very slow going. Most programmers and heavy plaintext users aren’t interested in the same features as you.

Some of what you are looking for is done through CSS. The question would be where would that CSS be saved on a per document basis. Maybe YAML or equivalent. In which case, your editor would have to translate your WYSIWYG instructions into the yaml. Not impossible but a little oppositional to the current markdown ethos.

Rich text programs, of course, integrate both the text and display into one file already. You’ll have noticed that Interoperability between markdown editors and rich text programs is typically poor, and many markdown editors are dead set against making it easier.

Files based markdown editors are stuck with pure markdown. Database apps are frequently more flexible, can mix and match components (they can choose to accept markdown syntax and save it internally into a rich text format if they choose; or vice versa) and have a higher proportion of users who need Interoperability with word processors.

At the end of the day, it’s a rapidly evolving PKM scene with new programs emerging all the time. Rather than dreaming of a better fit markdown language, you are likely to do better by using programs that are the best fit for your requirements.

1 Like

and there is NOTHING wrong with keeping notes in plain text, and using CSS to make it look better. That’s what most HTML web design programs do. I write 95% of my output in plain text.

1 Like

I know about all these programs that do rich text and do all that fancy stuff, personally I was using latex (the dominate of academic writing), but it’s ugly language with runic syntax. I just wish for markdown flavor for academic writing.

The provision that most markup language left open for meta-datas or future extensions, so that different tools and needs can be accomodates without creating frankeinstein needed consequent look ahead just in order to parse the right syntax. If it has meta-data they could be used for tons of things that are not about visuals (markdown is 50% structure and 50% formatting, and couldn’t really figure out what way to stand), the result i feel is a lack of structure that makes embedding things into each other very cumbersome. Just see how things will start to fall appart when you want to build a simple table, and nightmarish when you want to include rich things inside the tables.

Well HTML (HyperTextMarkUPLanguage) does very complex tables with visuals quite nicelly. MarkDown was created to be a bit simpler (Hence Down vs Up). And before HTML was Split into being just for page description and CSS was for page design, it was all in 1 document. If you need to do complex tables, write them in HTML. HTML is not that hard to use, and the results speak for themselves (most of the WWW is done in HTML).

Barry

1 Like

I agree on many of those desires.

In the good news department, Obsidian does actually support the resizing of embedded pictures. You just use the format ![[link|width in pixels]], like this:

![[someImage.webp|200]]

For OP’s requirements, it sounds like Asciidoc would be a better match (although without the support in Obsidian) …

Sticking with the Markdown side of things, it’s a matter of reconciling all the flavors of Markdown that have popped up over the years (Markdown, CommonMark, Github Markdown, R Markdown, Pandoc Markdown, etc.) as well as all the extensions (R Markdown, Pandoc Markdown, Literate, CoffeeScript, Codebraid, MATLAB, Ganesha, etc.) – what you want is probably available already, trying to find it is the issue (ex. for robust citations, you’re looking at the trinity of Markdown+Pandoc+Zotero)