Talk:Markup

Similar to what I said about Binary Data, I think that Markup should rarely if ever be a format's primary category. A format should be categorized based on its purpose, not its low level structure.

A lot of our Markup formats involve hypertext. The distinction between hypertext, hypermedia, and a lot of modern Document formats is blurry. For convenience, I lean toward lumping hypertext and hypermedia together, in a section named either "Hypermedia" or "Hypertext and Hypermedia". Even then, I'm not sure if a format like Markdown would be Hypermedia, or Document.

This proposed list of primary category changes includes all articles whose primary category is Markup.

• Accelerated Mobile Pages: Web → Hypermedia
• AIML: Markup → Scientific Data formats?
• Binary XML: Markup → Metaformats
• CommonMark: Markup → Document (or Hypermedia?)
• Compressed Markup Language: Web → Hypermedia
• DTD: Markup → Metaformats
• Fountain: Markup → Document
• HTML: Markup → Hypermedia
• LaTeX: Markup → Document
• Markdeep: Markup → Document (or Hypermedia?)
• Markdown: Markup → Document (or Hypermedia?)
• MHTML: Web → Hypermedia
• OBML (Opera Binary Markup Language): Markup → Hypermedia
• RASH: Markup → Hypermedia
• reStructuredText: Markup → Document (or Hypermedia?)
• Scholarly HTML: Markup → Hypermedia
• Scribe: Markup → Document
• SGML: Markup → Metaformats
• TeX: Markup → Document
• Text Encoding Initiative: Markup → Document?
• Wiki markup: Web → Hypermedia
• XML: Markup → Metaformats
• XML Schema Definition: Markup → Metaformats

Jsummers (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

That probably makes sense, though as you note some of them get a bit questionable to categorize... that was the appeal of vague categories like "Markup". Dan Tobias (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)