On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Natacha Porté <nata...@instinctive.eu> wrote:
> I completely share the opinion above, except I'm afraid you have > misunderstood the goal of CommonMark: it's not about unifying or > standardizing wiki format, only unifying Markdown. > i understand that, but there are several competing dialects already, and no truly overwhelming reason to consolidate them. If the benefits were 100% clear and compelling, it would already have replaced the other dialects. > But this is still about disambiguating "Markdown", without looking at > any other wiki or markup format. > If it is incompatible with _any_ existing Markdown dialects, then it is effectively a competing format. If there are over 2 dozen slightly different implementations, what are the real chances of getting those two dozen projects to consolidate on one standard? And then what are the chances that all of them will change their parsers to all work identically (which seems like quite a waste of effort, to have 20+ implementations which all work identically). i still predict utter failure ;). -- ----- stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal "Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
