search

markdown / discussion

Discussion surrounding the advancement of Markdown and standardization of existing language extensions
22 stars 0 forks source link

Select a js implementation as the standard #4

Open devinrhode2 opened 11 years ago

devinrhode2 commented 11 years ago

The biggest users of markdown really just need a js implementation (StackExchange, GH, Meteor)

Standardizing on a js implementation means less spec work and we will have an official spec sooner.

devinrhode2 commented 11 years ago

To be clear, the idea here is to simply let some js implementation be the standard.

devinrhode2 commented 11 years ago

There could still be a separate spec repo which contains tests, which would then be a submodule for the standard js implementation.

forivall commented 10 years ago

Are you taking inspiration from Python's model of having a reference implementation? If so, then :+1:

devinrhode2 commented 10 years ago

Actually, OAuth (Google "fuck oauth") On Sep 24, 2013 11:39 AM, "Jordan Klassen" notifications@github.com wrote:

Are you taking inspiration from Python's model of having a reference implementation? If so, then [image: :+1:]

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/markdown/discussion/issues/4#issuecomment-25031132 .

styfle commented 10 years ago

I would vote for GFM since it adds the language definitions for code blocks (Fenced Blocks) so you can add syntax highlighting where appropriate. GFM also implements Task Lists is one of the biggest reasons to write plain text: keeping track of a TODO list.

EDIT: I realized GFM is actually the spec and not the implementation so maybe something like marked

mrft commented 10 years ago

GFM has a few nice extensions, but it's a pity that no one seems to be using dokuwiki syntax instead of markdown.

What looks more intuitive to you:

Mardown's:

_italic_ or *italic* 
__bold__ or **bold**

or dokuwiki's

**bold**, //italic//, __underlined__

(add GFM's strikethrough syntax to that and you have all you need)

--mistake--

(of course there's more to dokuwiki's syntax, like tables etc. probably very similar to GFM's tables)

brunobord commented 10 years ago

@mrft sorry, but mentionning dokuwiki syntax in a markdown-centric discussion reminds me of: http://xkcd.com/927/ ;o)

mrft commented 10 years ago

You have a point, if you consider markdown as being something completely different from dokuwiki's syntax, but actually you could consider all these plaintext-formats-translated-to-formatted-text as being the same thing, just with some syntax variations (which is exactly why people are preferring one implementation over the other, because there is no real standard).

To me there is no fundamental difference between GFM or dokuwiki syntax, they are just variations (and actually GFM added some extras to markdown that are very similar to things that have existed for many years in the dokuwiki syntax).

So me mentioning dokuwiki is not so different from someone else pointing out he likes GFM better.

If you want to establish a 'standard', you might as well try to make some changes for the better while at it.

Besides, marked is an implementation, but you can set a lot of options to either support syntax X or syntax Y, so what would it mean if you would 'choose marked as the reference implementation'? You'd have to specify which options are enabled.

So, if someone else would have mentioned this, I would still have considered it useful input... because choosing an implementation as a reference will be mostly about syntactic preferences.