Funny enough, browsing without Javascript resulted in the same plain text appearing in both windows. I was nearly ready to comment about how easy that is with a pair of <pre> tags. :)<p>That said, I'm OK with it degrading like that. The text file is perfectly readable, and conveys the information within quite well. I even kind of preferred it.<p>So, yeah. Great job, OP.
I don't get it. Why would I do diagrams in ascii when I can use any one of dozens of good programs and export the result via DVI or PDF. I guess it must might be nice if I want to read the document on a text console, but I don't see that use case coming up nearly often enough to justify learning yet another version of markdown and commit to doing diagrams with ascii art.
I think org-mode can do that too (and much more I guess).<p><a href="http://home.fnal.gov/~neilsen/notebook/orgExamples/org-examples.html#sec-5" rel="nofollow">http://home.fnal.gov/~neilsen/notebook/orgExamples/org-examp...</a>
RST could do this - but I like Markdeep's simplified way (no "directives")<p>Now if all editors could come up with a compatible ascii graphic drawing tool that would actually be useable.
Nice setup, but its very cumbersome to write graphs in ascii, i prefer DOT if i dont care about layout too much, otherwise i use gliffy or something like that. For simple diagrams this is nice. However i think the main reason to use this is not diagrams. However then i think its better to use Markdown since most people know that.
The author seems very proud of the automatic-rendering JS they've written, and it's kind of cute but personally I'd much rather a batch-conversion tool.<p>On the other hand, that ASCII-art-to-SVG conversion is golden, and I'd absolutely love to have that supported in my API docs and blog-posts.
After 10 seconds of inspection: no, not a good idea, don't think this solves a nice problem.<p>Speaking as a PL & s-exp guy, I don't really have a problem writing<p>(bullets
(item "pick up milk")
(item "drop off desk"))<p>... but at the end of the day, I see that I can convey the same structure in a clearer way using markdown. Markdown is lovely because it's the <i>thinnest possible skin</i> over the structure; you can immediately see what structure the syntax is attaching. (Yes, there's still some parsing nastiness around paragraphs). This thing, though, doesn't have that "brilliant solution to a simple but really important problem" feel to it. I don't see this catching on.<p>Of course, I said the same thing about the internet in the spring of 1993.
The ASCII to graph feature reminds me of <a href="https://github.com/knsv/mermaid" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/knsv/mermaid</a> .<p>But I like the more WYSIWYG approach (if I dare say) of Markdeep.
I am thinking of using this for my personal website.
It has been a while since I have had to think about licenses, and I am having trouble thinking this one through.<p><i>Markdeep is open source. You may use, extend, and redistribute Markdeep without charge under the terms of the BSD license:
...
Markdeep includes markdown.js, so you are also bound by the MIT license (which is BSD-compatible):
...
...and the highlight.js BSD license:
</i><p>If I understand correctly that means I have to serve all three licenses in my HTML?
Nice, you could also do something to embed <a href="http://yuml.me" rel="nofollow">http://yuml.me</a> diagrams for converting text into diagrams?
This looks pretty sweet!
(On a sidenote, I'm trying to figure out whether making the documentation look like daringfireball.net was intentional or not.)