Re: docutils/rST vs direct html

On 26/01/14 20:31, Malik Rumi wrote:
> My question is, why is rST any better than just putting the text in a
> text editor and marking it up with html directly? Why would you chose to
> use rST (or any 'lightweight markup language') instead? And I ask that
> in all serious, trying to understand, as opposed to tying to cause
> controversy.

The term `lightweight markup language` contains a hint: It is easier to
write text with some lightweight markup syntax than marking it up with
something ”heavy” like HTML.  Also easier to read, and therefore easier
to maintain.

You may try it yourself: Take each reST syntax construct and use it and
then write the same text directly in HTML.  See which markup is more
disruptive to the thinking and writing process and which is more error
prone.

The ”lightweight” markup languages are more suitable for humans to read
and write, while HTML is designed to be easy readable by the computer.
HTML has the additional ”problem” that it is, or at least was in the
beginning, meant to describe the layout and looks of the document while
for a human writer (and reader) semantics are more important for most
kind of documents.

Ciao,
	Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
-- 
“A programming language is low level when its
 programs require attention to the irrelevant.”
                              -- Alan J. Perlis

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlLlcvEACgkQA1KPOgQjxlUYgwCeNPVlwgfJD/D7P9QfthITn8pq
whwAmwRrsG+DBzSY5uhTU1lOH9bQhdLU
=GD1l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----