๐
ธ ๐
ฐ๐
ผ ๐๐
ท๐
ด ๐
ป๐
ฐ๐.
๐ฝ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
I think it comes down to: when weโre dealing with truly non-technical users, we hope the clients have some sort of UI to insert codes; very non-tech users arenโt going to be very handy with any markup, and the best thing for them is some sort of WYSIWYG interface, or at very least an โinsert markup buttonsโ feature.
For the people writing markup by hand, IMO markup that minimally interferes with reading when it is unline (unrendered) is best. HTML, BBCode, and other heavy markup gets in the way more than (e.g.) djot, asciidoc, markdown, and other languages that descend from intuitively evolved markup from 70โs email systems.
Vivat diversitas.
Is it? Really? Easier for non-technical users than Markdown?
Most simple markup languages (djot, markdown, asciidoc, textile, etc.) are based on 7-bit ASCII markup that people have been using in email and SMS for decades. Theyโre compact and straightforward. BBCode is a bastardization (I use that in its technical sense more than as a pejorative) of HTML; itโs verbose and unintuitive.
Give a non-technical person with no other information a keyboard and a plain text field and ask them to emphasize a word in some text. Iโll bet the first thing they do is all caps. If you ask them to do it without caps, I bet youโll get something like surrounding the text in asterisks or hashmarks, but regardless, what you wonโt get is bracket-B-bracket followed by a closing tag.
BBCode is just straight-up HTML for people allergic to pointy characters. Thatโs hardly non-technical.
<sigh> Once more: Elon Musk is not God.