Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

WikiWord Linking in MS Word

<< < (2/3) > >>

m9833:
Thanks a lot Shades and skwire. I have downloaded both programs and have skimmed through information about both. All in all I am liking what I am seeing.

I am yet to begin trying ASCIIDocFx, but have started with Joplin. The interface is nice and I like the notebook organized interface. It does not have spellcheck, but as a compromise, I downloaded Typora and can use it as an external editor with spellchek, and can link it to Joplin.  Sadly, it does not offer the easy WikiLinking via [[]] or CamelCase that WikidPad or TiddlyWiki offer. Another alternative that I downloaded and tried (Notable), and I think also Typora offer this and really hope that Joplin will soon offer this as well. The file naming is based on internal codes and is a bit confusing, if one looks at the files using a file manager. Within the program interface, the names are organized quite well. The real time preview using a split screen effect is great for learning the syntax.

I will try Joplin for a few days, while also trying out MarkDown syntax, before trying ASCIIDocFX out.

Thanks again for introducing me to these interesting programs.

Shades:
The reason why I mention AsciiDoc:
MarkDown vs AsciiDoc
Markdown vs Wiki vs structured-text vs AsciiDoc
The AsciiDoc syntax makes more sense to me. But I might be weird about that.  :P


Once you know the AsciiDoc or Markdown syntax more or less by heart, you can use any text editor to create/edit these files.

m9833:
Shades, looking at the codes (not in depth), I too found the AsciiDoc syntax more logical. For example _abc_ for underscore rather than *_*. I haven't had much chance to use the codes so I expect there might be a logical reason for that, or maybe I will simply get used to the logic. :-)

In any case, I plan to give AsciiDoc a try once I have had some practice with markdown.

Dormouse:
I can see why AsciiDoc might be simpler, but I'm not convinced either are that intuitive once get away from headings, italics etc. I remember trying to work out colours in markdown once: some worked easily but others didn't. I decided it was another case of precise learning required.

In the end, I think ubiquity will beat perfection and that gives it to markdown. I noticed that even Trello works in markdown. Haven't checked the flavour, but I've noticed the GitHub version mentioned a lot.

skwire:
Even though I use Markdown, there are certain things that I prefer the AsciiDoc (or other markup formats) way of doing it.  You already mentioned one of them -- the use of underscores.  It's non-intuitive that Markdown formats _this_ as this.  WTH?  :huh:  I mean, they're underscores...they look like underlines, for goodness sake.   I would have preferred italics use forward slashes and be formatted so that /this/ turns into this.  However, some folks have trouble knowing which slash is a forward slash and which is a backward slash, so I can understand that there might have been some confusion because backslashes are used to escape characters.  Using backslashes, you can write: \_this\_ which would appear as: _this_.  As it stands now, to underline text in Markdown, you have to use <u></u> or <ins></ins> tags.  Ugly.
 
I agree that neither format is the be all, end all.   However, at some point, one needs to pick a format and just use it.  If one worries what they're missing from other formats, nothing gets done.   :P

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page