> For some prettier mark up.
But then if you run it through Prettier it'll add all the closing tags for you :)
But then if you run it through Prettier it'll add all the closing tags for you :)
There are several for HTML different versions and it is standardized that you can omit some closing tags and some tags altogether.
The benefit of writing in a standardized language is that later you or anybody can run tools against your sources that check for conformity.
So that is why I prefer HTML. But I would like to hear your opinion on what is the best mark-down dialect currently?
From their Github page I read: "The spec contains over 500 embedded examples which serve as conformance tests."
So it's not so simple any more, is it?
I claimed the specification existed, I didn’t claim it was a simple specification.
I just find it interesting. This would indicate to me that there are 500 "features" in the language. I thought mark-down languages just provided a few shortcuts for producing the most commonly needed HTML features and then provide a fallback to HTML. So if you cannot do it in the markdown language, use HTML instead.
But let's assume we can get away with just a single test for tables. And then we introduce the features "section headers" and "bold" and "underline". All these features can interact (e.g. underlined bold section headers), so we want to test combinations of all those features, and have a nice combinatorial explosion.
Whether the latter is worth it tends to depend on other things than parse time.
I'm not saying it's never worth it.