i am considering writing converters between my "zen markup language' and "markdown", but i don't know which version of markdown to target. i'd think it'd be the "pandoc" version, and i understand that to be closest to "multimarkdown", but gruber has said he "disagrees" with "almost every part" of multimarkdown's syntax additions... specifically, on 2008/03/14, gruber said:> I despise what you've done with Text::Markdown, > which is to more or less make it an alias for > MultiMarkdown, almost every part of which > I disagree with in terms of syntax additions.of course, on 2008/02/18, gruber also said:> I could give a rip about formal specifications, > truth be told.so i guess what he thinks doesn't matter, not if we wanna get all "formal" and such. then again, on 2009/02/27, gruber said:> I never say never. Well, usually.and then he disappeared -- poof! -- from this listserve; no posts in over 2 years... whatever. if anyone has any input, spit it. -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/markdown-discuss/attachments/20110622/1fb8ca25/attachment.html>
Is there a place that lists differences between different flavors? Alan http://blogic.com contact at alanhogan.com On Wednesday, June 22, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Bowerbird at aol.com wrote:> i am considering writing converters > between my "zen markup language' > and "markdown", but i don't know > which version of markdown to target. > > i'd think it'd be the "pandoc" version, > and i understand that to be closest to > "multimarkdown", but gruber has said > he "disagrees" with "almost every part" > of multimarkdown's syntax additions... > > specifically, on 2008/03/14, gruber said: > > I despise what you've done with Text::Markdown, > > which is to more or less make it an alias for > > MultiMarkdown, almost every part of which > > I disagree with in terms of syntax additions. > > of course, on 2008/02/18, gruber also said: > > I could give a rip about formal specifications, > > truth be told. > > so i guess what he thinks doesn't matter, > not if we wanna get all "formal" and such. > > then again, on 2009/02/27, gruber said: > > I never say never. Well, usually. > > and then he disappeared -- poof! -- from > this listserve; no posts in over 2 years... > > whatever. if anyone has any input, spit it. > > -bowerbird > _______________________________________________ > Markdown-Discuss mailing list > Markdown-Discuss at six.pairlist.net (mailto:Markdown-Discuss at six.pairlist.net) > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/markdown-discuss/attachments/20110622/d4d4d487/attachment.htm>
alan said:> Is there a place that > lists differences > between different flavors?sherwood said:> After that you'd have to > make a list of features, and > show different interpretations. > It would be a worthwhile effortyes, it would be. my guess is that one of the test-suites -- geared to stress all the features -- would be the best content for this drill. perhaps a concrete list of differences would be enough to persuade people that they _could_ actually attain unity, making each piece stronger by virtue of being a cog in a more powerful wheel... as far as what gruber would find to be distasteful about "multimarkdown", i'd say the answer would be perfectly clear: multimarkdown has sacrificed simplicity for power, a trade gruber wouldn't make. and one, frankly, which isn't necessary... -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/markdown-discuss/attachments/20110623/1542d45a/attachment.htm>
On Thursday, June 23, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Albert Skye wrote:> Basic Markdown (and other languages with even less syntax) may be semantically sufficient for many applications but as semantic requirements increase, plain text inevitably requires augmentation with additional metadata/syntax. > > I imagine most prefer (as do I) that semantics be inferred, in preference to introducing syntactic metadata, and that careful attention be given to the form of whatever syntax is necessary. > > For my own purposes, the following are essential: > > - primitive container elements (inline and block) > - the ability to attach attributes to any element > - general substitution (to include more than only images) > > Though a language may be used for displaying styled text and much more, plain text remains useful as a source format, and if one wishes to forgo extended semantics, superfluous metadata need not be present; i.e., a language which provides rich semantics may have simple syntax when used simply, as syntactic load may increase/decrease in natural proportion to semantic complexity. > > For those who find Markdown insufficient, it may be useful to modify it (and even throw some things away) instead of creating an extended superset. Perhaps Markdown ought to remain as it is, and the greater problem of structured text, abstracted and addressed directly, informed by Markdown instead of bound by it. > > askyeI tend to think the line should be drawn by asking the question, "Would <this feature> make sense if available across many sites?" For a lot of the "extra" features, the answer is yes. For macros (general substitution), the answer becomes less clear. Such tasks should likely exist in separate layers or in templating languages like Jinja2. Those are my initial thoughts, anyway. Alan Hogan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/markdown-discuss/attachments/20110623/705b4c68/attachment.html>