On 12/10/2017 6:22 AM, meppl wrote:
I think these are wrong criterias to estimate the value of commonmark.
Commonmark doesn't need to list anyone and doesn't need to be listed by anyone
to be a standard. commonmark is a standard proven by following "facts":
1) whenever a language feature is used by all popular markdown languages, it is
standard
2) there are markdown features who are used by all popular markdown languages
3) everyone can reveal this matter of fact - e.g. by writing it down as a
specification
4) any language feature published by the commonmark-spec is used by all popular
markdown languages
ergo: commonmark == standard markdown
well, at least, if the commonmark people did their homework right
I have a more pragmatic definition of a standard:
1. Products that implement it say they adhere to it and defer to it as the
authority on correct behavior.
2. There's more than one such product.
3. There's more products adhering to that standard than some other competing
standard.
So far as I know, commonmarkdown satisfies zero of those.
Don't get me wrong, I think commonmarkdown is a worthy effort, and is definitely
in the running to be a standard. Certainly a lot more effort seems to have been
put into it vs other markdowns. It is entirely reasonable to refer to it to
answer questions about whether some detail should yin or yang.
But implementing commonmarkdown in Ddoc is not what we're going to do, at least
for the near term.
