On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 20:06:17 GMT, Jonathan Gibbons <j...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> I agree it is not great. For some reason, I wanted to stay clear of >> *Markdown text* as being a source of confusion for the plain non-markup >> content in a String containing Markdown content. >> >> I'll look at the Markdown/CommonMark spec for any precedent. Failing that, >> I will at least try and ensure the terminology that we use is consistent. > > A quick simplistic scan of the CommonMark spec reveals no clear winner. > > > 2 Markdown and > 1 Markdown code > 1 Markdown content > 1 Markdown counts > 1 Markdown document > 2 Markdown documents > 2 Markdown from > 1 Markdown have > 5 Markdown implementations > 1 Markdown inline > 2 Markdown is > 1 Markdown meanings > 1 Markdown paragraph > 1 Markdown practice > 1 Markdown program > 1 Markdown spec > 1 Markdown started > 6 Markdown syntax > 1 Markdown to > 1 Markdown treats > 1 Markdown version > 1 Markdown will > 1 Markdown with > > > Of these, `content`, `document` and `program` seem the most applicable. > > * `content` has the potential for confusion with the `javadoc` `Content` > class ... but we already cope with `Element` and `Tag` by leveraging > qualifying adjectives. > * `document` seems to imply a file full of content, and not the content of > (part of) a doc comment > * `program` seems too geeky. > > Of the choices, `content` seems most reasonable. Could it be just _Markdown_ similarly to how it's usually just HTML? ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/11701
