Necesitamos un nuevo lenguaje de marcado de documentos, aquí está el motivo

Introducción: ¿Cuál es el problema?

Ya hay muchos lenguajes de marcado de documentos disponibles. Wikipedia enumera más de 70 variaciones en su Lista de lenguajes de marcado de documentos, entre ellos HTML, Markdown, Docbook, Asciidoctor, reStructuredText, etc.

Entonces, ¿por qué el título de este artículo sugiere que necesitamos otro ?

¿Cuál es el problema?

Hay dos problemas fundamentales con los lenguajes de marcado de documentos existentes: o no son fáciles de usar o no son adecuados para escribir documentos complejos, como artículos técnicos, manuales de usuario o libros. Un ejemplo de “no es fácil de usar, pero es adecuado para documentos complejos” sería Docbook. Un ejemplo de "fácil de usar, pero no adecuado para documentos complejos" sería Markdown.

Por supuesto, la categorización anterior es simplista. Pero debería servir como un buen punto de partida para obtener la esencia de este artículo que tiene como objetivo delinear el tipo de problemas que ocurren en la práctica. Verá muchos ejemplos representativos de códigos de marcado que ilustran lo que está mal, complementados con enlaces a más información.

También descubrirás un nuevo lenguaje de marcado. Muchos ejemplos demostrarán cómo una nueva sintaxis puede conducir a un lenguaje que sea “fácil de usar y adecuado para documentos complejos”. Una prueba de concepto de aplicación ya está disponible. Más sobre esto más adelante.

Observaciones preliminares

Tenga en cuenta:

  • Este artículo trata sobre los lenguajes de marcado de documentos utilizados para escribir documentos de texto , como libros y artículos publicados en la red. Existen otros lenguajes de marcado que se utilizan para describir datos específicos, como fórmulas matemáticas, imágenes e información geográfica, pero estos están fuera del alcance de este artículo. Sin embargo, algunas ideas presentadas en este artículo también pueden aplicarse a otros tipos de lenguajes de marcado.
  • Este artículo se centra únicamente en la sintaxis de los lenguajes de marcado. No discutiremos otros aspectos que también son importantes en la elección de un lenguaje de marcado adecuado, tales como: soporte en su SO, facilidad de instalación y dependencias, la cadena de herramientas disponible para crear documentos finales, la calidad de la documentación, precio, cliente. / soporte al usuario, etc.
  • Los lectores de este artículo deben tener alguna experiencia básica con un lenguaje de marcado como HTML, Markdown, Asciidoctor o similar.
  • Los lectores que no conocen las muchas ventajas de los lenguajes de marcado de documentos pueden querer leer primero:

    Ventajas de los lenguajes de marcado de documentos frente a los editores WYSIWYG (procesadores de texto)

Inconvenientes / Parte 1

Consideremos primero algunos lenguajes de marcado conocidos y echemos un vistazo a algunos inconvenientes.

HTML

HTML es el lenguaje de la web. Entonces, ¿por qué no escribir todo en HTML? Las razones para descartar esta opción son bien conocidas. Recapitulémoslos rápidamente.

HTML es complicado de escribir. Nadie quiere escribir código XML a mano, aunque los editores con soporte HTML / XML pueden ayudar.

Algunas tareas de escritura frecuentes requieren un código HTML no trivial.

Supongamos que queremos mostrar una imagen centrada horizontalmente con un borde negro simple y un enlace. El código HTML que un usuario sin experiencia esperaría trabajar podría verse así:

Pero el código que realmente tiene que escribir es engorroso y hay diferentes formas de hacerlo. He aquí una forma:

 

HTML carece de "funciones de productividad para escritores", como:

  • Generación automática de una tabla de contenido, índice, glosario, etc.
  • Variables utilizadas para mantener valores recurrentes
  • Dividir un documento en diferentes archivos

Más adelante se mostrarán otros inconvenientes.

Reducción

Markdown es un lenguaje de marcado ligero y muy popular. Es fácil de aprender y usar, y muy adecuado para textos breves y sencillos, como comentarios en foros, archivos Léame, etc.

Sin embargo, presenta los siguientes problemas que lo hacen inadecuado para documentos grandes o complejos (por ejemplo, artículos técnicos, manuales de usuario y libros):

  • El Markdown original definido por John Gruber carece de muchas características esperadas por los escritores, como tablas (solo se admiten tablas HTML incrustadas), generación automática de tablas de contenido, resaltado de sintaxis, división de archivos, etc.
  • No existe una especificación única e inequívoca para Markdown. Existen muchos tipos de Markdown, con diferentes reglas y diferentes características compatibles. Esto conduce a problemas de incompatibilidad cuando se comparte el código de marcado. CommonMark es un intento de resolver este problema. Sin embargo, la especificación es enorme y aún no se ha completado (en el momento de redactar este artículo, abril de 2019, la versión 0.28, con fecha de 2017-08-01, es la última).
  • Markdown tiene problemas y limitaciones similares a los que se muestran más adelante en el capítulo "Inconvenientes / Parte 2". Estos defectos pueden convertirse rápidamente en una molestia cuando usa Markdown para cualquier otra cosa que no sean textos breves y simples.

Aquí hay una lista de artículos con más información sobre las deficiencias de Markdown:

  • Por qué no debería utilizar "Markdown" para la documentación
  • ¿Atardecer en Markdown?
  • Por qué Markdown no es mi idioma favorito

Docbook

Docbook es un lenguaje de marcado basado en XML que usa etiquetas semánticas para describir documentos.

Probablemente tenga el conjunto de características más completo entre todos los lenguajes de marcado. Ha sido utilizado por muchos autores, está preinstalado en algunas distribuciones de Linux y es compatible con muchas organizaciones y editores. Docbook se ha utilizado con éxito para crear, publicar e imprimir muchos documentos grandes de todo tipo.

Pero tiene los siguientes inconvenientes:

Utiliza XML y una sintaxis detallada. Mire el siguiente ejemplo, tomado de Wikipedia:

 Very simple book  Chapter 1 Hello world! I hope that your day is proceeding splendidly!   Chapter 2 Hello again, world! 

¿Disfrutaría escribiendo y manteniendo dicho código?

Ahora compare el código anterior con el siguiente, escrito en un lenguaje de marcado moderno como Asciidoctor:

= Very simple book== Chapter 1Hello world!I hope that your day is proceeding _splendidly_!== Chapter 2Hello again, world!

Docbook también es complejo y, por lo tanto, difícil de aprender y usar.

La salida producida por Docbook, especialmente HTML, parece anticuada (ver ejemplos en su sitio web). Por supuesto, la presentación se puede personalizar, pero esto no es una tarea fácil.

Látex

LaTeX es un sistema de composición tipográfica de alta calidad. Es ampliamente utilizado en el ámbito académico para crear documentos científicos. Se considera la mejor opción para escribir documentos PDF que contengan muchas fórmulas y ecuaciones matemáticas.

Yo nunca usé LaTeX, porque no escribo documentos científicos, solo artículos y libros para publicar en la web. Por lo tanto, no quiero comentarlo demasiado. Sin embargo, es importante mencionarlo por su popularidad en la academia.

La sintaxis única de LaTeX me parece detallada y un poco compleja. Aquí hay un ejemplo abreviado de Wikipedia:

\documentclass{article}\usepackage{amsmath}\title{\LaTeX}
\begin{document} \maketitle \LaTeX{} is a document preparation system ...
 % This is a comment \begin{align} E_0 &= mc^2 \\ E &= \frac{mc^2}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}} \end{align} \end{document}

El artículo Conversión de (La) TeX a HTML establece que convertir las matemáticas de LaTeX a HTML es "un desafío".

Algunos lenguajes de marcado permiten que los fragmentos de LaTeX se incrusten en su código de marcado, lo que puede ser muy útil si necesita el poder de LaTeX para las matemáticas. Hay otras opciones para mostrar matemáticas en la web, como Mathjax o MathML (un estándar ISO y parte de HTML5).

Popular para documentos grandes

A impressive number of markup languages have emerged. Many of them use a syntax similar to Markup, and are therefore easy to learn and use. Some have more features than Markdown and are even extensible. However, as soon as we start writing complex documents, corner-cases and limits diminish the initial joy of using them.

Two popular markup languages used for big documents are Asciidoctor (an improved version of Asciidoc), and reStructuredText (an improved version of StructuredText). We will have a look at them soon.

Practical Markup Language (PML)

Before moving on to the most interesting part of this article, let me briefly introduce the new markup language I mentioned already in the introduction.

The language is called Practical Markup Language (PML).

“Ajustarse a las necesidades de una situación particular de una manera útil; ayudar a resolver un problema o dificultad; eficaz o adecuado ” - definición de 'práctico' en el Cambridge Dictionary

Comencé el proyecto PML hace unos meses porque no pude encontrar un lenguaje de marcado que fuera fácil de usar y adecuado para documentos grandes y complejos, como un manual de usuario.

En la siguiente sección, veremos ejemplos de código de marcado escrito en PML, en comparación con el código escrito en otros lenguajes. Entonces, mencionemos primero dos reglas básicas de sintaxis PML necesarias para comprender los próximos ejemplos.

Un documento PML es un árbol de nodos (similar a un documento XML / XHTML). Cada nodo comienza con una {, seguida de un nombre de etiqueta. Cada nodo termina con un }. Un nodo puede contener texto o nodos secundarios.

For example, here is a node containing text that will be rendered in italics:

{i bright}

This node starts with {i , and ends with }. i is the tag name. In this case i is an abbreviation for italic, which means that the node's content will be rendered in italics. The content of this node is the text bright. The above PML markup code will be rendered as:

bright

Some nodes have attributes, used to specify additional properties of the node (besides its tag name).

For example, the title of a chapter is defined with attribute title, as follows:

{chapter title=A Nice Surprise Once upon a time ...}

There is not much more to say about the basic concept of PML syntax. For more insight, and a description of features not used in this article, please consult the PML User Manual.

You can download and play around with a free implementation of PML. But please note: PML is a work in progress. There are missing features, you might encounter bugs, and backwards compatibility is currently not guaranteed.

I use PML myself to write all my web documents, such as this article. For links to more real-life examples please visit the FAQ.

Inconveniences / Part 2

I this section we’ll look at examples that reveal some problems encountered with markup languages. This is by no means an exhaustive enumeration of all troubles and corner cases. The aim is to just show a few examples that demonstrate the kind of inconveniences and limits encountered in the real world.

For each example the markup code will be shown in HTML, Asciidoctor, reStructuredText, and PML.

If you want to try out some code, you can use the following online testers (no need to install anything on your PC):

  • HTML
  • Asciidoctor
  • reStructuredText

An online tester for PML is not yet available. You have to install PML on a Windows PC if you want to try it out.

Font Styles

Font styles (italic, bold, monospace, etc.) are often used in all kinds of documents, so good support is essential.

But as we will see, surprises and limits can emerge, as soon as we have to deal with non-trivial cases. Let’s look at some examples to illustrate this.

Part of a Sentence in Italics

Suppose we want to write:

They called it Harmonic States, a good name.

This is a trivial case, and all languages support it.

HTML:

They called it Harmonic States, a good name.

Asciidoctor:

They called it _Harmonic States_, a good name.

reStructuredText:

They called it *Harmonic States*, a good name.

PML:

They called it {i Harmonic States}, a good name.

Part of a Word in Italics

We want to write:

She unwrapped the challenge first.

HTML:

She unwrapped the challenge first.

Asciidoctor:

She __un__wrapped the challenge first.

Note that we have to use two underscores. Using a single underscore (as in the first example), would result in:

She _un_wrapped the challenge first.

reStructuredText:

She *un*\wrapped the challenge first.

Note that the letter w has to be escaped (preceded by a backslash) for reasons explained here. If the letter is not escaped then a warning is displayed and the result is:

She *un*wrapped the challenge first.

PML:

She {i un}wrapped the challenge first.

Text in Bold And Italic

We want to write:

They were all totally flabbergasted.

HTML:

They were all totally flabbergasted.

Asciidoctor:

They were all *_totally flabbergasted_*.

reStructuredText:

Combining bold and italic is not supported in reStructuredText, but there are some complicated workarounds.

PML:

They were all {b {i totally flabbergasted}}.

Real-Life Example

Here is an example inspired by an Asciidoctor user who asked how to display:

_idoptional.

Let’s make the exercise a little bit more interesting by also displaying:

_idoptional.

HTML:

_idoptional_idoptional

No surprise here. It just works as expected.

Asciidoctor:

Intuitive attempt:

*_id* _optional___id_ *optional*

The first line doesn’t work, it produces:

id _optional

However, the second line works, which is a bit counterintuitive.

If normal text includes a character that is also used for markup (in our case the _ preceding id), then the character must be escaped. This is a fundamental rule in pretty much all markup languages. For example in HTML a < must be escaped with <. Many languages (including Asciidoctor and PML) use a backslash prefix (e.g. \r) to escape. So let's rewrite the code:

*\_id* _optional__\_id_ *optional*

This doesn’t work in Asciidoctor. It produces

_id _optional_

and

\_id optional

Here is a correct version, as suggested in an answer to the user’s question:

*pass:[_]id* _optional__pass:[_]id_ *optional*

Another answer suggests this solution:

*_id* __optional_____id__ *optional*

More edge case are documented in chapters Unconstrained formatting edge cases and Escaping unconstrained quotes of the Asciidoctor User Manual.

reStructuredText:

**_id** *optional**_id* **optional**

There is no problem here, because the character _ is not used in reStructuredText to define markup.

However, suppose we wanted to write:

*id**optional*.

Here is the code:

*\*id\** ***optional***

Note that the *s in id must be escaped, but the *s in optional don't need to be escaped.

PML:

{b _id} {i optional}{i _id} {b optional}

Nested Font Styles

Nested font styles of the same kind (e.g. .........) occur rarely in text written by humans, but they could be more or less frequent in auto-generated markup code. If they are not supported then the tool that generates the markup code becomes more complicated to implement, because it must track the font styles that are active already, in order to avoid nesting them.

So, how is this supported in the different languages?

HTML:

This is excellent, isn't it?

No problem, it produces

This is excellent, isn’t it?

Asciidoctor:

_This is _excellent_, isn't it?_

The above code is obviously ambiguous: Are the italics nested or do we want to italicize “This is “ and “, isn’t it?”. When I tested it, the result was neither of it:

This is _excellent, isn’t it?_

As far as I now, Asciidoctor doesn’t support nested font styles of the same kind.

reStructuredText:

The reStructuredText specification states: “Inline markup cannot be nested.” However, no error is displayed if it is nested, and the result is unspecified.

PML:

{i This is {i excellent}, isn't it?}

Font styles of the same kind can be nested in PML. The above code results in:

This is excellent, isn’t it?

Nested Chapters

Suppose we are writing an article titled “New Awesome Product” that contains four chapters. The structure looks as follows:

New Awesome Product Introduction More features Faster Less resources

Later on we decide to insert chapter “Advantages” as a parent of the three last chapters. The structure now becomes:

New Awesome Product Introduction Advantages More features Faster Less resources

What are the changes required in the markup code to pass from version 1 to version 2? Can we simply insert the code for a new chapter? Let’s see.

HTML:

Note: Code changes are displayed in bold.

As shown above, besides inserting the new chapter, we have to change the markup for the three child chapters: h2 must be changed to h3.

Asciidoctor:

Again, we have to change the markup for the three child chapters: == must be changed to ===

Note: The blank lines between the chapters are required, otherwise the document is not rendered correctly.

reStructuredText:

The markup for the three child chapters must be changed: All occurrences of = must be changed to -

The non-trivial rules for reStructuredText’s sections can be looked up here.

PML:

In PML, there is no need to change the code of the three child chapters.

Bottom Line:

In all languages, except PML, the markup code of all child chapters must be adapted if a parent chapter is inserted.

This is not a deal-breaker in case of small articles with few chapters. But image you are writing your next big article or book with lots of chapters and frequent changes. Now, the necessity to manually update child chapters can quickly turn into a daunting, boring, and error-prone task.

Note: Asciidoctor provides a leveloffset variable that can be used to change the level of chapters. This might be useful in some cases, but it also creates additional unneeded complexity, as can be seen here and here.

A more serious kind of problem can arise in the following situation: Imagine a set of different documents that share some common chapters. To avoid code duplication, the common chapters are stored in different files, and an insert file directive is used in the main documents. This works fine as long as the levels of all common chapters are the same in all documents. But troubles emerge if this is not the case.

It is also worth to mention that HTML, Asciidoctor and reStructuredText don’t protect us against wrong chapter hierarchies. For example, you don’t get a warning or error if a chapter of level 2 contains a direct child chapter of level 4.

In a language like PML, the above problems simply don’t exist, because the level is not specified in the markup code. All chapters (of any level) are defined with the same, unique syntax. The chapters’ tree structure (i.e. the level of each chapter) is automatically defined by the parser. And wrong hierarchies in the markup code, such as a missing } to close a chapter, are flagged by an error message.

Lists

In Asciidoctor the kind of problems we have seen with chapter hierarchies can also arise with list hierarchies (e.g. lists that contain lists). The reason is the same as for chapters: Asciidoctor lists use different markup code to explicitly specify the level of list items (* for level 1, ** for level 2, etc.). Moreover, there are a number of complications you have to be aware of when working with complex list content.

In reStructuredText, nested lists are created using indentation and blank lines. This works fine for simple nested lists, but creates other problems in more complex cases (not discussed here). Using whitespace (e.g. blank lines and indentation) to define structure in markup code is a bad idea, as we’ll see soon.

En HTML y PML, los problemas anteriores no existen con las listas porque la sintaxis para los nodos principal y secundario es la misma.

Espacio en blanco y sangría

Al principio, usar espacios en blanco para definir las juntas de la estructura es una buena idea. Mira el siguiente ejemplo:

parent child 1 child 2

La estructura es muy fácil de leer y escribir. No se necesitan caracteres de marcado especiales ruidosos.

Por tanto, es tentador para los diseñadores de lenguajes de marcado utilizar espacios en blanco como una forma sencilla de definir la estructura. Desafortunadamente, esto funciona bien solo para estructuras simples y tiene otros inconvenientes que veremos pronto.

Por lo tanto, se debe aplicar una regla simple pero importante en los lenguajes de marcado diseñados para funcionar bien con contenido complejo:

"El espacio en blanco no cambia la estructura ni la semántica del documento". - regla de espacio en blanco insignificante

¿Qué significa esto?

First, let us define whitespace: Whitespace is any set of one or more consecutive spaces, tabs, new lines, and other Unicode characters that represent space.

In our context, the above rule means that:

Within text, a set of several (i.e. more than one) whitespace characters is treated the same as a single space character.

For example, this code:

a beautiful flower

… is identical to this one:

a beautiful flower

Between structural elements, a set of whitespace characters is insignificant.

For example, this code:

… is identical to this one:

A special case of whitespace is indentation (leading whitespace at the beginning of a line). The above rule implies that indentation is insignificant too. Indentation doesn’t change the result of the final document.

Applying the whitespace-insignificant rule is important, because it leads to significant advantages:

  • There is no need to learn, apply and worry about complex whitespace rules (see examples below).

    Violating the whitespace-insignificant rule in a markup specification adds unneeded complexity, and can lead to markup code that is ugly, error-prone, and difficult to maintain, especially in the case of nested lists.

  • Whitespace can freely be used by authors to format the markup code in a more understandable, presentable and attractive way (pretty printing). For example, lists (and lists of lists) can be indented to display their structure in a visually clear and maintainable way, without the risk of changing the underlying structure.
  • Text blocks can be copy/pasted without the need to adapt whitespace.
  • If shared text blocks (stored in different files) are imported into several documents with different structures, there is no risk of changing or breaking the structure.
  • There is no unexpected or obscure behavior if the whitespace is not visible for human readers. Some examples:

    - a mixture of whitespace characters, such as spaces and tabs, especially when used to indent code

    - whitespace at the end of a line

    - whitespace in empty lines

    - visually impaired (blind) people who can’t read whitespace

    Note: To alleviate the pain, some editors provide a display-whitespace mode.

  • Tools that generate markup code, as well as markup parsers are generally easier to create.
  • In some situations it is useful to reduce whitespace to a minimum (e.g. no new lines), in order to save storage space and improve performance.

If you want a few examples demonstrating the kind of technical problems that arise if whitespace is significant, you can read:

  • What are the downsides to whitespace indentation rather than requiring curly braces?
  • F# syntax: indentation and verbosity
  • Issue in nodeca/js-yaml

So, how is whitespace handled in the languages we are discussing in this article?

HTML:

HTML applies the whitespace-insignificant rule.

For a thorough explanation, look at this excellent article written by Patrick Brosset: When does white space matter in HTML?.

Asciidoctor:

In Asciidoctor, whitespace is significant in some cases.

This can lead to surprising behavior and problems with no easy or no satisfying solution. Some examples can be seen here and here.

reStructuredText:

reStructuredText has whitespace rules that are ‘a bit surprising’.

For example, writing *very* results in very (text in italics, as expected). However, * very* results in * very* (no italics!), because of the whitespace preceding "very". To understand why, the answer might be found in chapter Whitespace of the specification.

PML:

Similar to HTML, PML applies the whitespace-insignificant rule.

There is one exception: For practical reasons, a blank line between two text blocks results in a paragraph break. This means that instead of writing:

{p text of paragraph 1}{p text of paragraph 2}

… we can simply write:

text of paragraph 1text of paragraph 2

Note: Sometimes, whitespace is significant in text. For example whitespace must be preserved in source code examples. Or, in verbatim text, several consecutive spaces or new lines must be preserved in the final document. All languages support this. However, in reStructuredText it’s not always obvious how to it, as shown here.

Other Inconveniences

As seen already, some markup languages systematically use opening and closing tags. An example would be <;i>; and in HTML. All XML-based languages, as well as PML belong to this class of languages.

Without digging into details, here are some drawbacks that can occur in languages that do not (or not always) use pairs of distinct opening/closing tags (e.g. Markdown, Asciidoctor, and reStructuredText):

Editor support

Creating good, reliable editor support is more difficult to develop. Examples of useful editor features are:

  • syntax highlighting for markup code
  • markup code completion
  • visualizing pairs of block start/end marks (e.g. { and its corresponding })
  • block collapsing/expanding

    In the case of languages that use distinct opening/closing tags, the two last features work out-of-the-box in some editors. For example, PML uses { and } for node boundaries. This is also used in many programming languages (C, Java, Javascript, etc.) and therefore block features implemented for programming languages will also work for PML.

Document validation

Fewer syntax and structure errors can be detected automatically. This can lead to more time spent on debugging documents. Or, even worse, there might be silently ignored errors that end up in wrong output (Did I really fail to spot the missing warning block on page 267 of my 310 pages book?).

Parsers

It is more difficult to create parsers (i.e. programs that read markup code) that work well in all cases. If different parsers read the same markup code, there is an increased risk of getting different results for corner-cases.

Auto-generated markup code

Tools that generate markup code programmatically are more difficult to create. For example, if whitespace is significant, or font styles cannot be nested, then additional state must be updated and tracked, in order to respect these rules.

My Own Experience

When I started writing technical documents a few years ago, I used Docbook. It took me some time to learn it, but after that I never stumbled on anything I couldn’t do. Docbook is powerful. However, I disliked typing verbose XML code. I tried some XML editors, but gave up. Finally I just wrote complete text blocks unformatted in Notepad++, and then adorned the text with the necessary markup code. It was frustrating and time-consuming. Moreover, I couldn’t find a stylesheet that produced good-looking web documents, and I didn’t have the patience, motivation, and experience to fiddle around with big, complex CSS files and adapt them.

Later on I discovered Asciidoctor. What a relief. Everything was so much simpler and the web documents were beautiful, out of the box. Asciidoctor’s documentation is great, and I think the community is helpful and active. However, when I started to write more complex and bigger documents, I had to deal with problems similar to those described in the previous sections. At one point, I had to develop a specific pre- and post-processor to solve a problem for which I couldn’t find a solution in Asciidoctor/Gitbook.

An intriguing question emerged: “Why do these problems not exist in Docbook?”.

To make a long story short, I concluded that we need a new markup syntax. The key points to success would be:

  • easy to learn: few, simple, consistent and predictable rules (no exceptions)
  • easy to write and read
  • well-structured documents with no ambiguities
  • powerful enough to create big, complex documents without the need for “special rules, tricks, or workarounds”

After a period of investigating, pondering, programming, testing and improving, the Practical Markup Language (PML) was born. Since then, I never looked back again. Today I write all my web documents in PML (including this article).

Of course, when I started to create PML, it was to cover my own needs. So, I am probably biased. Hopefully this article contains enough factual examples, but I encourage you to leave a comment if you see anything wrong, unfair, or missing. I appreciate constructive feedback of any kind, and I will update the article if needed.

Conclusion

As demonstrated in this article, a good number of problems encountered with existing document markup languages vanish with the PML syntax.

Now we should come together to improve PML and make it more powerful, so that it covers more use cases and more people can benefit from it.

Please help to spread the word. Or try out PML and send feedback, so that we know what needs to be refined. Your voice counts!

The vision is to create the best possible document markup language and all necessary tools, so that writers can focus on writing and enjoy creating beautiful documents in a minimum of time — without worrying about unneeded complexity.