On Monday, 11 December 2017 at 15:45:07 UTC, Guillaume Piolat
wrote:
On Monday, 11 December 2017 at 14:22:37 UTC, Jakob Bornecrantz
wrote:
And to add more, CommonMark on the other hand has a full spec
written and several test that covers the difficult to get
right parts of Markdown/CommonMark. I'm sure I don't need to
tell you the virtues of a good test suit.
The CommonMark approach is to just take the union of all
possible features and call it a day.
Standards without opinions don't deserve to be implemented by
anyone.
It's crazy to see that the most basic HTML features still cause
issues in Markdown. CommonMark can be seen as a pragmatic
approach but may suffer from the "Babel tower" problem: try to
assemble all the languages tend to make everybody disagree,
leading exactly to the opposite of the initial goal, that is
unification (it's probably not exactly that but i'm not a
theologist after all, 😂).
