I would have to agree with Andrei mostly. Those of us that have implemented markdown libraries generally refer to them as implementations of a **parser**. "Processor" or "translator" are not words I've ever seen used.
Waylan Limberg > On Sep 7, 2014, at 3:50 AM, Andrei Fangli <andrei_fan...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > I think not. When I hear Markdown processor I think of a specialized > word/text processor (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_processor) which > is more an application that helps you write stuff and print it, eventually > export it to html. If you were to write an application that helps you write > documents (e.g.: insert list, quote etc. via buttons/commands) and use > Markdown as the underlying format would be a Markdown processor. If you would > write an application that translates a Markdown document to html, that would > be a Markdown translator and the whole process would be called translation > (or Markdown to Html Translation). See > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translation. > > For me, Markdown implementation sounds a bit odd. Markdown is not > standardized nor is its specification clear enough to draw a deterministic > procedure for translating Markdown into html (or an Abstract Syntax Tree). > You cannot say that there are multiple Markdown implementations if they do > not yield the same output for any given input (if you would then I could swap > implementations however I wish and get the same result). > > I’d simply name the specification (or flavour) and append “Translator” at the > end (e.g.: Github flavoured Markdown Translator, Common Markdown Translator > etc.). That way it’s all clear what specification is used and what the intent > of the application is. The real working horse behind a translator is a > parser, once you have that you can pretty much do anything else. Saying that > you have a Markdown parser is almost the same as saying that you have a > Markdown translator, the remaining effort is close to a days work if you want > to make it really fancy. > > Andrei Fangli > > From: Sean Leonard > Sent: Sunday, 7 September 2014 02:55 > To: markdown-discuss@six.pairlist.net > > Hello Markdown World, > > Last month draft-seantek-text-markdown-media-type was adopted by the > IETF Apps Area Working Group (APPSAWG). I am working on revising it. > > I am trying to use uniform terms. An implementation that converts > Markdown content to another format--most typically HTML--is called...a > Markdown processor, right? > > I have been using the term "Markdown processor". Just want to see if > there is substantial disagreement about using that term to refer to the > collective set of Markdown implementations out there. > > Thanks, > > Sean > > PS I suppose it could also be called a "Markdown implementation". But > I'm going to stick to my original nomenclature in the absence of a push > for something else. For instance, graphical tools such as [MarkdownPad] > may be implementations of Markdown, but they are not processors. > MarkdownPad is a Markdown editor, that has built-in support for various > Markdown processors (such as a GitHub Flavored Markdown processor, and a > Markdown Extra processor). > > [MarkdownPad]: http://markdownpad.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > Markdown-Discuss mailing list > Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss > _______________________________________________ > Markdown-Discuss mailing list > Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
_______________________________________________ Markdown-Discuss mailing list Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
