[henrebotha]

There are real limitations to this: You can't arbitrarily mix and match HTML and Markdown. As soon as you introduce an HTML block, you're locked out of Markdown syntax.

AsciiDoc lets you mix and match however you want. Or, put differently: AsciiDoc's superiority over Markdown extends even to being better at shelling out to HTML.

[vidarh]

While that's true, I'd take Markdown + extensions to allow inline HTML or custom tags over AsciiDoc any day, even at the cost of losing some compatibility - converting that to plain Markdown is usually easy enough.

[judahmeek]

What are the trade-offs with AsciiDoc that would make you choose Markdown instead?

[catlifeonmars]

Not op, but markdown is much more likely to render well in different contexts, without post processing. My editor understands markdown, GitHub understands markdown, the link preview renderer in <random collaborative tool> understands markdown. It’s the lowest common denominator

[henrebotha]

That's true, and it's why we're all using it. But those different renderers all support different ill-defined interpretations of Markdown. You can forget about all of them accepting raw HTML.

[vidarh]

It has sufficient differences to what is already accepted "everywhere" that I would have think about syntax more often than I'd like. That is enough. The minor inconveniences of Markdown incompatibilities are smaller than the inconveniece of AsciiDoc. It simply doesn't offer nearly enough potential advantages to be worth the hassle.

[youngtaff]

O’Reilly’s authoring system used to use AsciiDoc (may still do), made me hate AsciiDoc

[tefkah]

mdx does tho. you could just not define any components, then you can nest markdown inside html no problem