On Nov 8, 2014, at 4:31 PM, Nick Wellnhofer <[email protected]> wrote:
> http://commonmark.org/ > > It's backed by established players in the industry and comes with a C library > released under a permissive license, so it seems ideal for our needs. In my > opinion, moving away from POD is crucial if we want to provide a > documentation system that works for other host languages than Perl. If there > aren't any objections, I'd be happy to work on switching our "DocuComments" > over to CommonMark. Common Markdown is not. It is the center of quite a lot of controversy, mostly around Jeff Atwood not respecting Markdown creator John Gruber and trying to appropriate the name “Markdown” for himself. Some background: http://shindoisshin.net/blog/2014/9/6/standard-markdown-controversy This flavor of markup might be ideal for code documentation, so may well be a great choice. I honestly don’t know. (I use tend to use MultiMarkdown, superset of Markdown). But you should be aware that, despite its name, it is manifestly *not* Markdown. It’s a Markdown-inspired markup language, yes, but not Markdown, and in fact violates some of the basic tenets of Markdown. Best, David
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
