(Again, rich text doesn’t need a binary file format but you ignored that)
Word’s Track Changes literally does this - you can compare/merge/etc. Quark also had extensions in the 90s that allowed it. It’s entirely feasible for any binary format (assuming you understand the format); why wouldn’t it be?
And it makes a lot of sense from a business standpoint, eg for lawyers, which is why they implemented it. Is it as rich as git? No, the use-case is different. Could it be? Yes.
I’m going to leave “power and freedom” where they lie and go marvel at the awesome power of the “Italic” and “Table” buttons from Word 5.1.
> (Again, rich text doesn’t need a binary file format but you ignored that)
I'm not arguing against rich text. I think it's a great idea. (My earlier comment suggests using it, actually.)
> Word’s Track Changes literally does this - you can compare/merge/etc.
Nice, but it doesn't support cherry-picking, creating and applying patch files, or any distributed VCS features. I'd also venture that it likely doesn't have anything like the 4-pane merge UI that tools like kdiff3 have.
---
If Word covers your needs, great! I'm not sure why you're arguing against markdown in favor of it, though. The two solve different problems.
I'm not arguing against word, just pointing out the practical differences between binary and plaintext files. Use what suits your particular needs!
Word’s Track Changes literally does this - you can compare/merge/etc. Quark also had extensions in the 90s that allowed it. It’s entirely feasible for any binary format (assuming you understand the format); why wouldn’t it be?
And it makes a lot of sense from a business standpoint, eg for lawyers, which is why they implemented it. Is it as rich as git? No, the use-case is different. Could it be? Yes.
I’m going to leave “power and freedom” where they lie and go marvel at the awesome power of the “Italic” and “Table” buttons from Word 5.1.