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, 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 alias for MultiMarkdown, almost every part of > >>> which I disagree with in terms of syntax additions. > >> > >> 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 ;) > > > > 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 "Markdown". > > Text::Markdown, as stated several times previously on the list *does > not* have any additional syntax, it behaves *just like* original > brand Markdown. I *am not* dressing up mutton and calling it lamb... > So sorry - but you've got totally the wrong end of the stick here. >
It may be important here to draw a line between the Markdown specification (what JG has on the Markdown web pages), and various implementations (the primary -- but not only -- one being `Markdown.pl`). Numerous projects have gone through the same growing pains. For example, Python the language, with "CPython" being the main implementation (which most everyone just calls "Python" anyway). Another example is Perl 6, where they recently named the implementation that runs on Parrot "Rakudo" (instead of calling it "perl6"). 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. Anyhow, I haven't read all the responses to this thread. It's gotten a bit long, and really, I'm actually kinda surprised it's generated so much heat. I bet that if someone simply grabbed the most recent `Markdown.pl` and added: 1. Tables. Regular, boring, but unmistakable ones like how the emacs table mode does them (http://table.sourceforge.net/) but allow table headers by underlining with +===+ instead of +---+. Only allowing them starting in column 0 would be fine. 2. Definition lists. My favorite syntax is just: term definition goes here (term and def separated by at least 3 spaces). Multiple lines must have same indentation as the first one (counting letters in term as spaces). 3. The handy header id attribute syntax that PHP Markdown Extra supports (though only allowing it with the atx-style headers (even only with matching closing hash marks) would be just fine). Those three things I think would pretty much satisfy a large swath of currently unsatisfied users. Maybe a reason was already discussed why that can't easily be done and I missed it. ---John _______________________________________________ Markdown-Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
