Textile vs Markdown

Bloke · 2016-09-20 09:09:37

candyman wrote #301626:

So, are there any chances to see TextUp inside the 4.7 release?

Sure, if you write it :-p

We may be able to rustle up some coders who are willing to strip the cruft from Textile and modge the best bits of Markdown into it. I could make a start one day, but if anybody wants to run with it now, stick your hand up and I’ll make a repo. There’s already a top-level GitHub project of the same name (which is a shame), but we could swing one off textpattern/textup no problem.

hcgtv · 2016-09-20 11:53:05

candyman wrote #301626:

I understand that if the world is speaking a language (Markdown) we can’t continue to use our dialect (Textile) but, on the other side, Textpattern is too connected to Textile to allow just the thinking to put it on the same level.

Not everybody speaks Markdown, there are other markup languages that are in use worldwide. This, what GitHub is doing, is directed straight at Textpattern, a fuck you if you will. Wouldn’t be surprised if over cocktails someone from Automattic didn’t nudge the decision a bit. Think about it, people decide on Textile for their GitHub pages, they really like it, and decide to give Textpattern a try. Not no more folks.

This is bullshit, and your project was just dealt a lethal blow, and you’re debating the install routine.

gaekwad · 2016-09-20 12:12:30

hcgtv wrote #301637:

This, what GitHub is doing, is directed straight at Textpattern, a fuck you if you will. Wouldn’t be surprised if over cocktails someone from Automattic didn’t nudge the decision a bit.

You’re massively overstating the importance/relevance of Textpattern to anyone at Automattic. WordPress is thought to run about 25% of websites, and it’s steadily increasing its marketshare. The same organisation shows Textpattern usage currently at 0.003% of websites and in decline — in real terms, for every Textpattern instance, there’re about 8,000 WordPress instances.

I’m not connected or affiliated with GitHub beyond being a contributor to open source projects hosted there, but practicality speaking they have finite resources and they clearly need to prioritise. I don’t have statistics or data from SEC filings, but how many GitHub repositories are paid for? 1%? 10%? 25%? More than half? I don’t know.

This is bullshit, and your project was just dealt a lethal blow, and you’re debating the install routine.

Respectfully, Bert, this is not a lethal blow, not even close. If you’re trolling and I just fell for it, then +1 internet point to you.

GitHub Pages, something that this shoestring, volunteer-led project uses at no cost made a decision to deprecate and stop using Textile at a given point. There was notice given, and it was a commercial decision. Markdown took off, is more well-known and likely used more widely than Textile. People clearly didn’t decide on Textile for their GitHub Pages in sufficient numbers for GitHub to continue supporting it.

Textpattern still works in the same fashion as before. The docs need some rewriting, and by nature of them living in a VCS like git on GitHub, >1 person can get involved in this process.

Don’t want to add Markdown to your skill set? Then don’t learn it. Easy, really.

philwareham · 2016-09-20 12:30:17

Yes, exactly what Pete said.

We are not connected to Textile at all in my eyes – apart they were just both initially created by the same person who then walked away from both early in their life. Textile has it’s own developers and organisation, who chose to develop it as they see fit.

All we want to do it gives the option of using Markdown in the core as well as Textile to end users, since it is a massively more popular text filter. If you then still want to use Textile you still can.

GitHub streamlined its Jekyll-powered GitHub Pages of a number of features to make their development cycle easier – it’s not an attack on anyone.

hcgtv · 2016-09-20 12:58:50

Guys and Gals,

Textpattern has been a surreal experience, thanks for the code.

bert@jessie:~$ exit

michaelkpate · 2016-09-20 15:21:28

Wordpress:

The definitive Textile Plugin is Textile2 which hasn’t been updated in 9 years and is based on Brad Choate’s Textile2 fork. There are later versions of plugins but speaking from experience none of them seem to work that well.

The definitive Markdown Plugin is JP Markdown which is a repackaged versions of the Markdown that users of WordPress’ JetPack services get and updated last a few months ago. There are also a couple of versions that use Parsedown.

Drupal:

Textile – Release Date: 2011-Oct-22

Markdown – Release Date: 2016-Aug-15

Maybe there is some alternative universe where Textile maintained the early momentum but we don’t live there. I don’t think most people even Markdown but just stay with HTML but I personally like the idea of everyone having a choice.

Edit: Update the blog post link from goo.gl to bit.ly.

Last edited by michaelkpate (2016-09-20 18:22:59)

candyman · 2016-09-20 17:22:36

Michael, the link has been disabled.

michaelkpate · 2016-09-20 18:23:45

candyman wrote #301651:

Michael, the link has been disabled.

Very strange. Nothing in the goo.gl interface even tells me that.

mrdale · 2016-09-20 19:02:58

I’m agnostic but more choices seems fine to me. Especially considering markdown’s adoption rate. I never liked textile anyway. Used to use it a lot with big tables that I wanted to generate from scraped text.

BUT: In my opinion the only thing that would make the whole textile and markdown inclusion really, really useful would be some implementation of automagic flat file content import like rah_flat…

Mentioned the idea to rah_flat’s new maintainer. We’ll see where it goes.

I recently used kirby on a project. It was breathtaking how dramatically faster my site came together while editing articles as flat files in directories instead of through the GUI interface.

This approach is developer-centric in that my customers would continue to edit through the GUI after launch… but just imagine, during build, duplicating a file 10 times, renaming them all something unique, dragging them to other section’s directories and boom you have a whole site’s placeholder content.

Then just edit away each item, saving as you go.

philwareham · 2016-09-20 21:15:48

Isn’t flat files (aka skins/themes) already planned for 4.7? Stef gas a branch on GitHub with some preliminary code in it. If not, then I’m all for the rah_flat code being combined into core if soneone wants to take ownership of it.

Bloke · 2016-09-20 22:44:33

philwareham wrote #301654:

Isn’t flat files (aka skins/themes) already planned for 4.7?

(OT) Yes. I had the preliminaries all coded up before the admin-layout-upate branch hit master and was starting work on the flat file portion. Need to refresh my memory on what’s planned as I can’t remember if Article content was included or if it was just Presentation layer stuff. I suspect the latter because syncing Articles across Sections might be tricky.

mrdale wrote #301653:

This approach is developer-centric in that my customers would continue to edit through the GUI after launch…

Since the way rah_flat works is to turn off the Presentation menu items so you can manage them in the file system, would you “turn off” the Write and Articles panels if editing articles that way?! And how would you define custom field data? Article Image data? Cats?

Editing presentation layer stuff works because there’s a one-to-one mapping. One file = one Form/Page textarea block, and (in the case of Forms) the filename determines type. Articles have many blocks of content. How would you demarcate them? xml? html? json? And, getting back on topic, they need passing through a Textfilter prior to publication so the relevant DB columns can be set or content generated.

If you’re advocating running the entire site — content and presentation — from files, you’re going to hit performance issues over disk contention (at least, noticeable on spinning platter) and will lock out your content creators unless they also adopt flat-file based editing. Not saying it’s impossible, but having to write into a fixed-format language file so all the sidebar content can be attributed properly, and uploading/downloading files all over the place to get content to show up is hardly my definition of “Just Write”.

(this can all be discussed elsewhere, let’s stay on topic here)

bici · 2016-09-21 05:00:46

The best option for editing flat files that i have experienced is Mountee with ExpressionEngine. Must be tried to be believed. Mountee mounts the presentation files as a flat directory. Something to shoot for.

Destry · 2016-09-21 07:59:56

Mountee looks fantastic. Presumably the initial login details can be for a local dev site too, synced with a repo. Don’t think it’s enough for me to start using EE, though. ;)

Bloke wrote #301655:

Articles have many blocks of content. How would you demarcate them? xml? html? json?

From my ignorant vista, I’d imagine something similar to the current new docs, as an example concept, where auxiliary text fields and other form controls (status, dates, image IDs, section/cats…) were defined at top of page. Is that JSON?

Purists and professional CCMS people would tell you XML, but JSON is probably a better choice for Txp country.

mrdale · 2016-09-22 16:58:35

Bloke wrote #301655:

(OT) Yes…

…(this can all be discussed elsewhere, let’s stay on topic here)

er… guilty! sorry about the misdirection

behold, a shiny new topic »

GugUser · 2016-11-17 18:08:29

Great news, Textile 3.6 was released.

Textpattern CMS support forum

#31 2016-09-20 09:09:37

Re: Textile vs Markdown

candyman wrote #301626:

#32 2016-09-20 11:53:05

Re: Textile vs Markdown

candyman wrote #301626:

#33 2016-09-20 12:12:30

Re: Textile vs Markdown

hcgtv wrote #301637:

#34 2016-09-20 12:30:17

Re: Textile vs Markdown

#35 2016-09-20 12:58:50

Re: Textile vs Markdown

#36 2016-09-20 15:21:28

Re: Textile vs Markdown

#37 2016-09-20 17:22:36

Re: Textile vs Markdown

#38 2016-09-20 18:23:45

Re: Textile vs Markdown

candyman wrote #301651:

#39 2016-09-20 19:02:58

Re: Textile vs Markdown

#40 2016-09-20 21:15:48

Re: Textile vs Markdown

#41 2016-09-20 22:44:33

Re: Textile vs Markdown

philwareham wrote #301654:

mrdale wrote #301653:

#42 2016-09-21 05:00:46

Re: Textile vs Markdown

#43 2016-09-21 07:59:56

Re: Textile vs Markdown

Bloke wrote #301655:

#44 2016-09-22 16:58:35

Re: Textile vs Markdown

Bloke wrote #301655:

#45 2016-11-17 18:08:29

Re: Textile vs Markdown

Board footer