Welcome to Codidact Meta!
Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.
2 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
Nothing earth-shattering, really, just what made sense to me. Markdown is technically a markup language, which feels more correct to me in a monospace font. (Plus I also find monospace easier to read, but that might just be me :) )
It makes it much easier to tell that you're writing or editing a post, for one, instead of looking at a completed post.
In addition, it's rather standard practice to have your font be monospace when composing a post if you're not using rich text. Since we're using Markdown, it makes sense to go with what's generally done and use monospace while composing. (See, for instance, the difference between using Wikipedia's visual editor and the WikiText editor.) This makes it clear that what you're typing is sort of like code - it's not what's literally going to show up in your post; it's going to be transformed in some way (such as asterisks making things bold or whatever).
If we were to add a rich text editor as well, then I'd be in favor of using the regular font there as well.
0 comment threads