As many of you know, when a piece of open-source software languishes
with bugs for 3 years it's often forked Markdown.pl is licensed under
the BSD license. (do `>tail -35 /path/to/Markdown.pl`)
Has anyone thought of forking and maintaining Markdown.pl (hopefully
with Gruber's blessing) to fix so
Hi,
why not using other "versions" of Markdown, like MultiMarkdown for
example?
Best regards,
On Feb 27, 2008, at 11:36 PM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
As many of you know, when a piece of open-source software languishes
with bugs for 3 years it's often forked Markdown.pl is licensed under
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 12:38 AM, Pedro Melo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>
> why not using other "versions" of Markdown, like MultiMarkdown for
> example?
Yeah, after I wrote this I realized that the other versions were, in a
sense, forks. One thing that hasn't been "forked" is the syntax
documen
* Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-02-28 00:40]:
> As many of you know, when a piece of open-source software
> languishes with bugs for 3 years it's often forked
No, that’s not what I know.
What I know is that projects get forked if they have developers
who irreconcilably disagree wi
Hi,
On Feb 28, 2008, at 4:48 PM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 12:38 AM, Pedro Melo
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>
why not using other "versions" of Markdown, like MultiMarkdown for
example?
Yeah, after I wrote this I realized that the other versions were, in a
sense, fo
On 27 Feb 2008, at 23:36, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
As many of you know, when a piece of open-source software languishes
with bugs for 3 years it's often forked Markdown.pl is licensed under
the BSD license. (do `>tail -35 /path/to/Markdown.pl`)
Has anyone thought of forking and maintaining
> I'd like to get to a point where I'm a little more happy with the
> code, and then I'll start promoting this as a 'true' fork, or, if I
> can get John to agree and approve - I'd like to become the 'official'
> maintained version which is linked from daringfireball.
I am sure Markdown.pm will
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tomas Doran wrote:
>
>On 27 Feb 2008, at 23:36, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
>
>> As many of you know, when a piece of open-source software languishes
>> with bugs for 3 years it's often forked Markdown.pl is licensed under
>> the BSD license. (do `>tail -35 /path/
Le 2008-02-28 à 18:04, Yuri Takhteyev a écrit :
I am sure Markdown.pm will make life much simpler for those using
Markdown with Perl. As a maintainer of a markdown module in a
different language, however, I am not as excited about the idea of a
new "official" implementation.
Same here.
...
> Hum, while it's difficult to spec Markdown because its author doesn't
> seem so much interested, I think creating a spec for Markdown Extra is
> possible. I could host it on my website, alongside PHP Markdown Extra,
> and I could change PHP Markdown Extra to fit that spec.
If you do write a
On 29 Feb 2008, at 01:00, david parsons wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tomas Doran wrote:
On 27 Feb 2008, at 23:36, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
Has anyone thought of forking and maintaining Markdown.pl (hopefully
with Gruber's blessing) to fix some of the known bugs?
I'm actively
On 29 Feb 2008, at 05:17, Michel Fortin wrote:
... And if Markdown.pm keeps evolving (which it should), does
this mean that we would now be on the hook for diffing Markdown.pm
code daily to find out what new features has become official?
That's how I've been keeping in sync with Markdown.pl
On 28 Feb 2008, at 23:04, Yuri Takhteyev wrote:
I'd like to get to a point where I'm a little more happy with the
code, and then I'll start promoting this as a 'true' fork, or, if I
can get John to agree and approve - I'd like to become the
'official'
maintained version which is linked f
Le 2008-02-29 à 6:35, Tomas Doran a écrit :
On 29 Feb 2008, at 05:17, Michel Fortin wrote:
... And if Markdown.pm keeps evolving (which it should), does
this mean that we would now be on the hook for diffing Markdown.pm
code daily to find out what new features has become official?
That's h
Le 2008-02-29 à 0:23, Andrea Censi a écrit :
Hum, while it's difficult to spec Markdown because its author doesn't
seem so much interested, I think creating a spec for Markdown Extra
is
possible. I could host it on my website, alongside PHP Markdown
Extra,
and I could change PHP Markdown Ex
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tomas Doran wrote:
>
>On 29 Feb 2008, at 01:00, david parsons wrote:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Tomas Doran wrote:
>>>
>>> On 27 Feb 2008, at 23:36, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
Has anyone thought of forking and maintaining Markdown.pl (hopefully
On 29 Feb 2008 08:04:31 -0800, david parsons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What I'd love, too, is to see is to have the spec nailed down and
> blessed by John Gruber, at the very least so people don't have to
> trawl through markdown.discuss and 30 or so individual
> implementation
> Text::Markdown *does not* extend the original Markdown syntax *in any
> way*.
Well, I don't know if agree with this reading.
Text:Markdown just imports Text:MultiMarkdown and disables some
features. While it might behave like the original markdown, it goes a
long way in terms of blurring the
On 29 Feb 2008, at 19:29, Yuri Takhteyev wrote:
Text::Markdown *does not* extend the original Markdown syntax *in
any
way*.
Well, I don't know if agree with this reading.
Good! My original comments were somewhat deliberately inflamatory to
try and provoke discussion - which seems to h
Sorry for the delay in responding, the weekend happened - and it
mostly involved moving my brother in law house rather than reading
email...
On 29 Feb 2008, at 16:04, david parsons wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tomas Doran wrote:
Text::Markdown *does not* extend the original Mar
On Feb 28, 2008, at 12:34 PM, Tomas Doran wrote:
I'm actively maintaining the CPAN modules Text::Markdown, and
Text::MultiMarkdown, and longer term, I'd like these to become the
canonical distribution.
I despise what you've done with Text::Markdown, which is to more or
less make it an ali
On 3/14/08, John Gruber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
Agree. But `markdown.pl` is asleep. Bless Michel's (and
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 11:13 PM, Lou Quillio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip] But `markdown.pl` is asleep.
Can anyone please point me to the very newest version of
`Markdown.pl`? Is it
http://daringfireball.net/projects/downloads/Markdown_1.0.2b8.tbz
(from May '07) ?
Thanks.
---John
On 15 Mar 2008, at 02:55, John Gruber wrote:
On Feb 28, 2008, at 12:34 PM, Tomas Doran wrote:
I'm actively maintaining the CPAN modules Text::Markdown, and
Text::MultiMarkdown, and longer term, I'd like these to become the
canonical distribution.
I despise what you've done with Text::Mar
> Wow, that's pretty strong language. I'm glad I'm provoking strong
> opinions, and it's nice to see you actively contributing to
> Markdown's direction ;)
Yeah, that was totally uncalled for. I am sure John could give a rip
about what the list thinks about this kind of contributing, but I am
good stuff... gruber's an asshole, as far as I can tell. best, Joe
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 5:27 PM, Tomas Doran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 15 Mar 2008, at 02:55, John Gruber wrote:
>
> > On Feb 28, 2008, at 12:34 PM, Tomas Doran wrote:
> >
> >> I'm actively maintaining the CPAN modules
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 7:25 PM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> good stuff... gruber's an asshole, as far as I can tell. best, Joe
Damn. Well, I didn't intend for that to go out to the entire list. I
apologize, but I also found the recent response to be harsh. I'll be
more car
LOL that was actually funny :) (No the number is still 42)
Seriously, it is easy to get up in arms when your "creation" ends up
becoming bastardised, whatever the form that may take (for better or for
worse). To be honest, I have not really seen for myself that
MultiMarkdown has a whole lot to
On 16 Mar 2008, at 02:57, Seumas Mac Uilleachan wrote:
LOL that was actually funny :) (No the number is still 42)
Seriously, it is easy to get up in arms when your "creation" ends
up becoming bastardised, whatever the form that may take (for
better or for worse). To be honest, I have not r
Tomas Doran wrote:
John Gruber wrote:
Tomas Doran wrote:
I'm actively maintaining the CPAN modules Text::Markdown, and
Text::MultiMarkdown, and longer term, I'd like these to become the
canonical distribution.
I despise what you've done with Text::Markdown, which is to more or
less make it
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Jacob Rus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tomas Doran wrote:
>
> > John Gruber wrote:
> >> Tomas Doran wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'm actively maintaining the CPAN modules Text::Markdown, and
> >>> Text::MultiMarkdown, and longer term, I'd like these to become the
> >>> ca
On 16 Mar 2008, at 19:07, Jacob Rus wrote:
Tomas Doran wrote:
John Gruber wrote:
Tomas Doran wrote:
I'm actively maintaining the CPAN modules Text::Markdown, and
Text::MultiMarkdown, and longer term, I'd like these to become
the canonical distribution.
I despise what you've done with Te
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Tomas Doran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 16 Mar 2008, at 19:07, Jacob Rus wrote:
>
> > Tomas Doran wrote:
> >> John Gruber wrote:
> >>> Tomas Doran wrote:
> >>>
> I'm actively maintaining the CPAN modules Text::Markdown, and
> Text::MultiMarkdown,
On 17 Mar 2008, at 00:37, John Gabriele wrote:
So, if the problem is confusion (or perceived confusion) over the
name, perhaps the Perl modules could be something like `Text::MD` and
`Text::MDX` (or `Text::MD::Extra`). I'm sure others here could come up
with more creative names.
Yeah, I see wh
> So, if the problem is confusion (or perceived confusion) over the
> name, perhaps the Perl modules could be something like `Text::MD` and
> `Text::MDX` (or `Text::MD::Extra`). I'm sure others here could come up
> with more creative names.
I don't think there is any practical confusion about
On 3/16/08, John Gabriele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Those three things I think would pretty much satisfy a large swath of
> currently unsatisfied users.
You're close, IMO. Definition lists and an explicit code block
delimiter that doesn't depend on indents (yet nevertheless nests as
written)
On Mar 16, 2008, at 3:07 PM, Jacob Rus wrote:
It’s harsh but reasonable language in my opinion. If you are going
to make something which is not Markdown (i.e. has other bits of
syntax not specified in John's description of that language), then
you should call it by a name other than “Markd
On Mar 16, 2008, at 9:31 PM, Yuri Takhteyev wrote:
If Gruber decides he
"despises" our specification, we should simply call it something other
than "Markdown".
Just to be clear: in that case, you *must* call it something other
than "Markdown".
-J.G.
___
On 18 Mar 2008, at 05:22, John Gruber wrote:
On Mar 16, 2008, at 3:07 PM, Jacob Rus wrote:
It’s harsh but reasonable language in my opinion. If you are
going to make something which is not Markdown (i.e. has other bits
of syntax not specified in John's description of that language),
the
* Tomas Doran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-03-18 13:15]:
> My preferred solution would be for the 'original' (i.e.
> daringfireball brand) Markdown to have most of the code in a
> module called Text::Markdown, but to supply a script wrapper
> called Markdown.pl which provides the original functionalit
> Anyway, a spec for Markdown Extra would contain a spec for Markdown as
> well, wouldn't it?
I think the whole enterprise would be a lot more valuable, if we
produce a combined spec, which would be self-contained, and call it
Markdown 2.0.
I don't think we necessarily need a formal grammar. W
Le 2008-02-29 à 3:49, Yuri Takhteyev a écrit :
Anyway, a spec for Markdown Extra would contain a spec for Markdown
as
well, wouldn't it?
I think the whole enterprise would be a lot more valuable, if we
produce a combined spec, which would be self-contained, and call it
Markdown 2.0.
I also
I wholeheartedly agree. The main attractions of Markdown to me are:
1. It is easy to read
I use Markdown for personal info and stuff, then convert and read in
a browser. But for me it is ALSO important to be able to easily read the
original source. That is where Markdown excels over the ot
With all this discussion about evolving the spec, I think we want to
remember the philosophy behind Markdown to begin with. Go re-read the
Overview[1] of the syntax rules.
[1]: http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax#overview
As the very first line says:
> Markdown is intended to be a
On Feb 29, 2008, at 10:13 AM, Michel Fortin wrote:
I think the syntax needs to be defined unambiguously, not
necessarily as a formal grammar, but certainly not with code either.
My idea, currently, is to write a parsing procedure which is easy to
read and implement in various ways, using a
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Waylan Limberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's not to say that there are no valid arguments to add additional
> syntax, but the arguments for those new rules would need to be very
> convincing.
Just wanted to note that this does not mean that I'm opposed to
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 8:52 AM, Thomas Nichols <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Having a spec/ruleset/syntax definition seems an admirable goal; does
> this necessarily imply that, for example, you should not be able to
> begin a list item with zero to three spaces, at your discretion? This
> se
Waylan Limberg wrote on 2008/02/29 15:56:
With all this discussion about evolving the spec, I think we want to
remember the philosophy behind Markdown to begin with. Go re-read the
Overview[1] of the syntax rules.
... snip ...
Take the discussion a short time ago on this list regarding w
On 29 Feb 2008, at 16:52, Thomas Nichols wrote:
Cases in point:
* Feynman
* Dirac
* Bohr
without thinking about inserting an extra line before the list to
ensure that it gets correctly processed, aligning asterisks with
zero indent so they get correctly processed, yada yada. Part of the
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 8:52 AM, Thomas Nichols <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Having a spec/ruleset/syntax definition seems an admirable goal; does
> > this necessarily imply that, for example, you should n
> Personally, some of the "holes" in the current syntax rules are
> actually the "features" that makes this statement true. As
> implementors, we want a strict spec because it's easier to implement,
> but that does not always result in easier to read and/or write.
I don't see how ambiguity of
Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote on 2008/02/29 17:14:
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 8:52 AM, Thomas Nichols <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Having a spec/ruleset/syntax definition seems an admirable goal; does
this necessarily imply that, for example, you should not be able to
begin a list item with zero to
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Yuri Takhteyev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well, except that people use it for blogs and wikis and they need some
> of those extra features, and if we don't agree on some of them (like
> definition lists and tables) then we end up with a hundred different
>
Since Joe called for procedural suggestion, here is what I think we should do:
1. First, I think there were valid concerns about whether it would be
ok for us to come up with a spec and call it "Markdown 2.0". I
suggest we put the question of naming aside. Once we agree on a spec,
we'll ask for
* Waylan Limberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-02-29 17:00]:
> As implementors, we want a strict spec because it's easier to
> implement, but that does not always result in easier to read
> and/or write.
You have “strict” and “simplistic” confused. If the spec for the
syntax is rigorous that does not
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Yuri Takhteyev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since Joe called for procedural suggestion, here is what I think we should do:
> 1. ...
> 2. ...
Yuri's suggestion looks reasonable to me.
--
Andrea Censi
PhD student, Control & Dynamical Systems, Caltech
http://www.cd
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 6:18 PM, Aristotle Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
[snip]
Thanks Aristotle. You bring up may good points which I will not argue
with. That post was meant to generate conversation and you, among
others bit the bait (although you may have bit a little harder). These
ar
Well, if its going to happen, this will probably make it happen.
Further thoughts below:
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Yuri Takhteyev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since Joe called for procedural suggestion, here is what I think we should do:
>
> 1. First, I think there were valid concerns abou
I'm going to comment both on Yuri and Waylan's message here.
Le 2008-03-01 à 0:31, Waylan Limberg a écrit :
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Yuri Takhteyev
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Since Joe called for procedural suggestion, here is what I think we
should do:
1. First, I think there were
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Fraser wrote:
>
>On Feb 29, 2008, at 10:13 AM, Michel Fortin wrote:
>
>> I think the syntax needs to be defined unambiguously, not
>> necessarily as a formal grammar, but certainly not with code either.
>> My idea, currently, is to write a parsing procedur
I think many of Michel's points are quite reasonable. Given that we
agree on many parts, how about we start off with those things we agree
on and deal with other issues later. Specifically, I suggest that we
start with hammering out the "macro" part of "Level 1" of the spec.
I.e., let's not worry
On Mar 1, 2008, at 1:19 PM, david parsons wrote:
I agree that Markdown needs to be defined unambiguously, but I don't
think that's feasible with plain English in the loop. For something
as complex and flighty as Markdown, we need working code.
I'm not so sure about this. I managed to writ
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Fraser wrote:
>On Mar 1, 2008, at 1:19 PM, david parsons wrote:
>>> I agree that Markdown needs to be defined unambiguously, but I don't
>>> think that's feasible with plain English in the loop. For something
>>> as complex and flighty as Markdown, we need wo
On 1 Mar 2008, at 19:19, David Parsons wrote:
I agree that Markdown needs to be defined unambiguously, but I don't
think that's feasible with plain English [...]
I'm not so sure about this. I managed to write a markdown
implementation without using anything other than the daring
fir
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Allan Odgaard wrote:
>
>On 1 Mar 2008, at 19:19, David Parsons wrote:
>
>>> I agree that Markdown needs to be defined unambiguously, but I don't
>>> think that's feasible with plain English [...]
>>
>>I'm not so sure about this. I managed to write a markdown
>
* Yuri Takhteyev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-03-01 00:05]:
> 2. As Thomas suggested, we should first reach some agreement as
> to what if anything needs to change from the original Markdown
> or how the "holes" are to be filled. _Then_ try writing a
> grammar. I suggest that we do this first part in
Allan Odgaard wrote:
Though without changing a lot of edge-case behavior, I find it hard
to see Markdown using such rule-based implementation, so personally
I am favoring a new Markdown-inspired language.
For my part, I'm currently trying to specify parsing rules Markdown
Extra, and make
On Mar 3, 2008, at 7:30 AM, Michel Fortin wrote:
Allan Odgaard wrote:
4. A regexp which is pushed onto a stack when entering the context of
this rule, and popped again when leaving this rule.
The fourth item here is really the interesting part, because it is
what made Markdown nesting work (99
> Since I'm doing something packrat-ish, I'm hoping I can use lookahead
> to keep the rules from exploding.
I didn't know what packrat was, so I googled it. It looks interesting:
from what I understand, it's a more user-friendly way of specifying
languages.
Here's a good link, if anyone else is
On Mar 3, 2008, at 3:36 PM, Andrea Censi wrote:
I didn't know what packrat was, so I googled it. It looks interesting:
from what I understand, it's a more user-friendly way of specifying
languages.
Here's a good link, if anyone else is interested:
http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/~baford/packrat/
Sor
On 3 Mar 2008, at 13:30, Michel Fortin wrote:
[...]
1. A regexp that makes the parser enter the context the rule
represents (e.g. block quote, list, raw, etc.).
2. A list of which rules are allowed in the context of this rule.
3. A regexp for leaving the context of this rule.
4. A regexp whi
Le 2008-03-04 à 0:49, Allan Odgaard a écrit :
On 3 Mar 2008, at 13:30, Michel Fortin wrote:
[...]
1. A regexp that makes the parser enter the context the rule
represents (e.g. block quote, list, raw, etc.).
2. A list of which rules are allowed in the context of this rule.
3. A regexp for le
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 8:02 PM, Michel Fortin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure what's the problem with horizontal rules in blockquotes.
> I've tried many variations of: ...
trying to reproduce this on the df Markdown dingus lead to a weird
result. Here's the input:
> test
>
an
On 5 Mar 2008, at 05:02, Michel Fortin wrote:
[big explanation]
So you're basically using a line by line approach.
Yes, seeing how the block-level nesting stuff affects things “line by
line”, this seems like the best approach :)
I was thinking about that as a possibility for parsing block
On 29 Feb 2008, at 05:17, Michel Fortin wrote:
Le 2008-02-28 à 18:04, Yuri Takhteyev a écrit :
Perhaps there is a need for a better _perl_ implementation (or a few,
competition is fun), but as far as "official" goes, we need a
comprehensive and up-to-date spec and a test suite against which al
On 21 Mar 2008, at 20:39, Tomas Doran wrote:
On 29 Feb 2008, at 05:17, Michel Fortin wrote:
Le 2008-02-28 à 18:04, Yuri Takhteyev a écrit :
Perhaps there is a need for a better _perl_ implementation (or a
few,
competition is fun), but as far as "official" goes, we need a
comprehensive and
Le 2008-03-21 à 16:39, Tomas Doran a écrit :
So, the *only* things that Text::Markdown currently fails on are
small whitespace changes..
Hum, have you written your own test script?
I encourage you to use the mdtest.php script if you have PHP 5
installed on your computer. It'll normalize th
On 22 Mar 2008, at 02:32, Michel Fortin wrote:
Le 2008-03-21 à 16:39, Tomas Doran a écrit :
So, the *only* things that Text::Markdown currently fails on are
small whitespace changes..
Hum, have you written your own test script?
Yep.
Actually, I'd already written one - I can just 'requir
Le 2008-03-22 à 8:49, Tomas Doran a écrit :
The problem with that is that it's pretty hard to require that
everyone installing (the perl version of) Markdown has php5
installed...
Obviously, I can make this optional (and you can only run these
tests if you have php5), however that would m
On 22 Mar 2008, at 18:04, Michel Fortin wrote:
2) Write a wrapper for mdtest.php to convert it's output into TAP
format so that it can/will be run as part of my test suite if php5
is available. (Or, I can write php - would you take a patch to
output TAP format as an option so that I don't h
80 matches
Mail list logo
