Allow underline

[cilerler]

None of the markdown sites support underline and everybody has different opinion on that subject where bottom line is strike-out, underline and highlight is a routine in real life so they should be a part of digital text writing.

Would you consider to implement it and name it as StackEdit flavored markdown?

* for bold and not with double * ~ for italic and not _ _ for underline - for strike-out : for emoji ^ for highlight

[benweet]

Sorry, I didn't read your comment fully. StackEdit is a Markdown editor and uses markdown-it under the hood. There is no plan for another markup format support, I'm afraid.

[mlopezgva]

The Markdown specification states that either __ or ** for strong (usually bold text) text, that single *or _ is for emphasized (usually italic, but not always!).

You can read it at the (somewhat) official MarkDown definition at CommonMark.org, and the original John Gruber's specs at Markdown Syntax Documentation. The latter is the original work, and it already has __ and _. These are standard, using * for bold and _ for either italic or underline as in AsciiDoc and other older formats.

Aside the core markdown (which, by the way, is also followed here at GitHub), there are some extensions, like Github tables and checklists, markdown-it ==marked text==, a commonly used double-tilde ~ for striked text (github and others)...

About the :, some implementations use them for definition lists, but can be used inline for smileys or emoticons or emojis. The highlight is marked with a double =, since ^ is already used for footnotes in some extensions.

It would require some effort from other widespread software owners (HackMD, mardown-it et al) to get a consensus about the "new extensions standard".

[cilerler]

Thank you for the detailed explanation.

Since @benweet stated StackEdit uses markdown-it I changed the request. You may find details at #1121

[mlopezgva]

You are welcome.

I was used to ASCIIDoc, and found strange to use __ for bold, or * for italics... But, they're indeed different text formats, and although they mixup sometimes (SeText comes from asciidoc), we should not mix them. :-)

I will vote up for ==mark== and ::+1:: emojis.

2017-10-02 16:45 GMT-03:00 Cengiz Ilerler notifications@github.com:

Thank you for the detailed explanation.

Since @benweet https://github.com/benweet stated StackEdit uses markdown-it I changed the request. You may find details at #1121 https://github.com/benweet/stackedit/issues/1121

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/benweet/stackedit/issues/1119#issuecomment-333643523, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AA8y5v85d1T417Vos46Arp893_chFW5iks5soT1JgaJpZM4Pq9du .

-- Atte.,

Manuel López

[jerrygreen]

I'm just a random web adventurer here, but I'd like to mention that though it's probably unwise to change the Markdown rules here, because it's quite a standard already, and unless it's called somehow else, like "Markdown2" or whole another name, that would be real bad to change such a fundamental behaviors, - they're breaking changes to the Markdown. BUT, I would 100% agree that this list does make sense:

* for bold and not with double * ~ for italic and not _ _ for underline - for strike-out : for emoji ^ for highlight

Because these symbols have ideal fit to the meanings the author associated them with. Better meaning than the original Markdown.

[mlopezgva]

we can talk about "new" formatting, but the standard should remain untouched. If not, we should begin with (yet) another"standard"(1) which could mix all the others, but this is impossible. Let's take "italics":

• creole: //italics text//
• reStructuredText: *italics*
• Asciidoc: *italics*

And so on... By the way, none of the ones I know use ~ as "italics".

1: "the best thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from".

[GibbZ-78]

Hi folks,

I am just another random anonymous amateur coder here and don't really know how "vivid" this discussion still is but missing underline capability when writting my READMEs so much, I would find it a relevant option and like to humbly propose to use the below "markers / switches" so as to fully disambiguate formatting via markdown-style text. Indeed:

1. double "markers" are very unlikely to exist / occur in any written human language (so far),
2. combination of style (e.g. "italic" and "bold") would be fully possible, no possibility of mixing "*" or "_" existing any more in this case, and
3. as @jerrygreen was suggesting, we could get closer from what writers really meant to put down (i.e. "__" more clearly stands for an underlined text marker than "*" or "**", same for "~" for "italic", etc.).

Just saying...

• ** for bold
• ~~ for italic
• __ for underline
• -- for strike-out
• :: for emoji
• ^^ for highlight

Have a nice day, folks!