Sherwood Botsford wrote:
Not to worry. I wasn't expecting backward compatibility, so that [...]
THAT said, however, maintaining perfect backward compatibility slows
down progress.
If this is your view, you shouldn't put "markdown" in the name.
Implementation specs: The program should have a compiled in
set of locations to look for the config file, a command line option, and
an environment option.
Wait, compiled? Environment options? This is getting way more complex
than necessary. Keep it simple, on general principle.
Consider too, if it is truly an improvement, it can be given a
Yes, I'd guess that's unlikely. There have been a half dozen attempts
to "improve" markdown; I don't particularly like any of them. (no
offense intended to those implementors)
I agree that you need a way for people to gracefully make the
transition. The best approach is a method that allows old
and new systems to co-exist in the same environment. If you call it
with a new name, there shouldn't be a problem.
The new one is unlikely to gain much mindshare unless it is a)
unquestionably better, and b) gets used by some prominent system/tool/etc.
Good luck.
Jacob
(not trying to rain on parades here :)
_______________________________________________
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
