Plus, anything outright new, like tables, is by definition going
to break compatibility with 1.0 implementations.
Anything, from the simplest bug fix to the most complex feature, is
by definition going to break compatibility with 1.0 implementations
because the output for a given input is going to change; there's no
way to avoid that.
It might be nice if "version 2.0" were a little stricter in defining
what constitutes a valid markdown document. That way it's possible to
extend the language to interpret previously invalid documents,
instead of changing behavior for valid ones---so people authoring
"valid" markdown need not worry about features from future versions.
Such an approach only goes so far for a language like markdown that
tries to let everything look very natural, but most of the extensions
I've seen are fairly esoteric and don't sit well in plain-text
anyway, so hiding the markdown encoding behind a few extra characters
really doesn't hurt too much.
-rob
_______________________________________________
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
