On 10/11/2014 18:27, David E. Wheeler wrote:
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.
I'm aware of the controversy. That's how I actually found out about
CommonMark. I also agree that the initial plan of naming it "Standard
Markdown" was presumptuous. But aside from political things, I can't see how
CommonMark is different from other Markdown flavors. Regarding the syntax and
feature set, it's close enough to the original Markdown, similar to
Github-flavored Markdown.
For Lucy or Clownfish, I'm mostly interested in a compact C-based parser with
a compatible license that will be maintained for the foreseeable future.
Unlike some other C implementations that have been discontinued, I'm pretty
sure that CommonMark will stay around for quite some time. The focus on a
strict specification is also a plus, although it doesn't matter that much for
our needs. We only need a minimal subset of Markdown that maps nicely to the
documentation format we want to support (for now, POD, HTML, and man pages
(troff)). I'd rather prefer an implementation without unneeded features like
HTML blocks.
Nick
