Re: Text::Markdown vs MDTest (Was: Re: forking Markdown.pl?)

[Tomas Doran]

On 22 Mar 2008, at 18:04, Michel Fortin wrote:
2) Write a wrapper for mdtest.php to convert it's output into TAP  
format so that it can/will be run as part of my test suite if php5  
is available. (Or, I can write php - would you take a patch to  
output TAP format as an option so that I don't have to re-parse  
your output?)


I'd gladly accept a patch.


Awesome, will do.

...but I'm not sure I get what your plan is: do you intend to do  
both 1 *and* 2?


Yes. :)

More testing is always better, and if there are corner cases where my  
whitespace normaliser doesn't agree with yours (and one fails a test  
but the other doesn't) - then we should give the smoke tests  
opportunity to find them...



3) Compare all of my tests to see which I'd like to add to MDTest.


Or perhaps I could just add all of your tests as a separate testsuite.


That sounds reasonable, and was pretty much what I was thinking of. I  
may / will probably need two test suites, one for Text::Markdown, and  
one for Text::MultiMarkdown.


Cheers
Tom



___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: Text::Markdown vs MDTest (Was: Re: forking Markdown.pl?)

[Michel Fortin]

Le 2008-03-22 à 8:49, Tomas Doran a écrit :

The problem with that is that it's pretty hard to require that  
everyone installing (the perl version of) Markdown has php5  
installed...


Obviously, I can make this optional (and you can only run these  
tests if you have php5), however that would make the CPAN smoke  
testing I get a whole helluva lot less effective..


The other issue is that as mdtest.php doesn't output TAP test  
format, then it's not possible to use it in standard perl TAP tests  
- however this is easily overcome by providing a wrapper.


So, my approximate plan is:
1) Re-write your whitespace normalisation stuff (or see if I can  
convince something on CPAN already to do it), for my test suite so  
that getting a real smoke test against MDTest doesn't require php.


For that I'm basically using the HTML and/or XML parser from PHP 5  
(which is libxml I think), iterating over each DOM node and reworking  
whitespace depending on the context. Porting that shouldn't be very  
hard if you have access to an XML parser.


2) Write a wrapper for mdtest.php to convert it's output into TAP  
format so that it can/will be run as part of my test suite if php5  
is available. (Or, I can write php - would you take a patch to  
output TAP format as an option so that I don't have to re-parse your  
output?)


I'd gladly accept a patch.

...but I'm not sure I get what your plan is: do you intend to do both  
1 *and* 2?



3) Compare all of my tests to see which I'd like to add to MDTest.


Or perhaps I could just add all of your tests as a separate testsuite.

4) Fix the bugs left in Text::Markdown which the PHP Markdown test  
suite shows up ;)



Michel Fortin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://michelf.com/


___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: Text::Markdown vs MDTest (Was: Re: forking Markdown.pl?)

[Tomas Doran]

On 22 Mar 2008, at 02:32, Michel Fortin wrote:


Le 2008-03-21 à 16:39, Tomas Doran a écrit :

So, the *only* things that Text::Markdown currently fails on are  
small whitespace changes..


Hum, have you written your own test script?


Yep.

Actually, I'd already written one - I can just 'require' it, and call  
the 'test everything in this directory' function ;)


I encourage you to use the mdtest.php script if you have PHP 5  
installed on your computer. It'll normalize the whitespace for you  
before comparing the output, ensuring that insignificant whitespace  
differences don't make any test fail. All you need is an executable  
you can invoke that will parse the standard input and put the  
result on the standard output and you can use MDTest like this:


./mdtest.php -n -s Markdown.pl

-n for normalize (and ignore insignificant whitespace), -s to tell  
mdtest to use the given script (such as Markdown.pl). You can add - 
d to see a diff for failing tests.




The problem with that is that it's pretty hard to require that  
everyone installing (the perl version of) Markdown has php5 installed...


Obviously, I can make this optional (and you can only run these tests  
if you have php5), however that would make the CPAN smoke testing I  
get a whole helluva lot less effective..


The other issue is that as mdtest.php doesn't output TAP test format,  
then it's not possible to use it in standard perl TAP tests - however  
this is easily overcome by providing a wrapper.


So, my approximate plan is:
1) Re-write your whitespace normalisation stuff (or see if I can  
convince something on CPAN already to do it), for my test suite so  
that getting a real smoke test against MDTest doesn't require php.
2) Write a wrapper for mdtest.php to convert it's output into TAP  
format so that it can/will be run as part of my test suite if php5 is  
available. (Or, I can write php - would you take a patch to output  
TAP format as an option so that I don't have to re-parse your output?)

3) Compare all of my tests to see which I'd like to add to MDTest.
4) Fix the bugs left in Text::Markdown which the PHP Markdown test  
suite shows up ;)


Cheers
Tom

___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: Text::Markdown vs MDTest (Was: Re: forking Markdown.pl?)

[Michel Fortin]

Le 2008-03-21 à 16:39, Tomas Doran a écrit :

So, the *only* things that Text::Markdown currently fails on are  
small whitespace changes..


Hum, have you written your own test script?

I encourage you to use the mdtest.php script if you have PHP 5  
installed on your computer. It'll normalize the whitespace for you  
before comparing the output, ensuring that insignificant whitespace  
differences don't make any test fail. All you need is an executable  
you can invoke that will parse the standard input and put the result  
on the standard output and you can use MDTest like this:


./mdtest.php -n -s Markdown.pl

-n for normalize (and ignore insignificant whitespace), -s to tell  
mdtest to use the given script (such as Markdown.pl). You can add -d  
to see a diff for failing tests.



Michel Fortin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://michelf.com/


___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: Text::Markdown vs MDTest (Was: Re: forking Markdown.pl?)

[Tomas Doran]

On 21 Mar 2008, at 20:39, Tomas Doran wrote:



On 29 Feb 2008, at 05:17, Michel Fortin wrote:


Le 2008-02-28 à 18:04, Yuri Takhteyev a écrit :
Perhaps there is a need for a better _perl_ implementation (or a  
few,

competition is fun), but as far as "official" goes, we need a
comprehensive and up-to-date spec and a test suite against which all
implementations could be measured.


I'm maintaining MDTest for that. If anyone wants a new test case  
to be added to MDTest, I'll gladly accept it. If anyone wants to  
dispute one of MDTest's expected result, I'm open to discussion,  
preferably on this list so that everybody can take part.


As promised, here are the results of MDTest 1.1's Markdown tests  
against Text::Markdown's trunk code (what is going to be 1.0.18,  
should be exactly the same for the to be released 1.0.17):




So, the *only* things that Text::Markdown currently fails on are  
small whitespace changes..


I'm going mental tonight obviously (or rather, I had too large a  
glass of wine with dinner). These test results are exactly what I'd  
expect as Text::Markdown is know to pass the full Markdown test suite  
already..


Looking at the PHP Markdown test suite (also in MDTest), there are a  
number of bugs that I've still got which Michel has fixed with PHP  
Markdown, I'll report back about these later when I've had a bit more  
chance to look at them.


Cheers
Tom

___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Text::Markdown vs MDTest (Was: Re: forking Markdown.pl?)

[Tomas Doran]

On 29 Feb 2008, at 05:17, Michel Fortin wrote:


Le 2008-02-28 à 18:04, Yuri Takhteyev a écrit :

Perhaps there is a need for a better _perl_ implementation (or a few,
competition is fun), but as far as "official" goes, we need a
comprehensive and up-to-date spec and a test suite against which all
implementations could be measured.


I'm maintaining MDTest for that. If anyone wants a new test case to  
be added to MDTest, I'll gladly accept it. If anyone wants to  
dispute one of MDTest's expected result, I'm open to discussion,  
preferably on this list so that everybody can take part.


As promised, here are the results of MDTest 1.1's Markdown tests  
against Text::Markdown's trunk code (what is going to be 1.0.18,  
should be exactly the same for the to be released 1.0.17):


tdpb:~/Text-MultiMarkdown t0m$ perl -Ilib t/50mdtest-markdown.t
1..24
ok 1 - use Text::Markdown;
ok 2 - Docs test: Amps and angle encoding
ok 3 - Docs test: Auto links
 


DIFFERENCES: + = processed version from .text, - = template from .html
@@ -101,7 +101,6 @@

 Minus: \-

-
 These should get escaped, even though they're matching pairs for
 other Markdown constructs:


not ok 4 - Docs test: Backslash escapes
#   Failed test 'Docs test: Backslash escapes'
#   at /Users/t0m/Text-MultiMarkdown/t/20fulldocs-multimarkdown.t  
line 25.

ok 5 - Docs test: Blockquotes with code blocks
ok 6 - Docs test: Code Blocks
ok 7 - Docs test: Code Spans
ok 8 - Docs test: Hard-wrapped paragraphs with list-like lines
ok 9 - Docs test: Horizontal rules
ok 10 - Docs test: Images
ok 11 - Docs test: Inline HTML (Advanced)
ok 12 - Docs test: Inline HTML (Simple)
ok 13 - Docs test: Inline HTML comments
ok 14 - Docs test: Links, inline style
ok 15 - Docs test: Links, reference style
ok 16 - Docs test: Links, shortcut references
ok 17 - Docs test: Literal quotes in titles
ok 18 - Docs test: Markdown Documentation - Basics
ok 19 - Docs test: Markdown Documentation - Syntax
ok 20 - Docs test: Nested blockquotes
 


DIFFERENCES: + = processed version from .text, - = template from .html
@@ -136,13 +136,14 @@
 Third
 

-
 This was an error in Markdown 1.0.1:

 
 this

-sub
+
+sub
+

 that
 

not ok 21 - Docs test: Ordered and unordered lists
#   Failed test 'Docs test: Ordered and unordered lists'
#   at /Users/t0m/Text-MultiMarkdown/t/20fulldocs-multimarkdown.t  
line 25.

ok 22 - Docs test: Strong and em together
ok 23 - Docs test: Tabs
 


DIFFERENCES: + = processed version from .text, - = template from .html
@@ -1,8 +1,9 @@
 
-A list within a blockquote:
-
-asterisk 1
-asterisk 2
-asterisk 3
-
+  A list within a blockquote:
+
+  
+  asterisk 1
+  asterisk 2
+  asterisk 3
+  
 

not ok 24 - Docs test: Tidyness
#   Failed test 'Docs test: Tidyness'
#   at /Users/t0m/Text-MultiMarkdown/t/20fulldocs-multimarkdown.t  
line 25.

# Looks like you failed 3 tests of 24.

So, the *only* things that Text::Markdown currently fails on are  
small whitespace changes..


The cases where I have *too many* line breaks I think could do with  
fixing, and I'll have a look at how trivial (or not) that turns out  
to be..


In the other cases, I think that Text::Markdown's behavior is  
*superior* to that of the original Markdown / what the test cases  
expect. What do other people think?


I'll shortly be going through the other test cases that I've got of  
my own / with the module to see if I can add some to MDTest, and I'll  
propose those in a separate mail to the list..


Cheers
Tom

___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: forking Markdown.pl?

[Aristotle Pagaltzis]

* Tomas Doran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-03-18 13:15]:
> My preferred solution would be for the 'original' (i.e.
> daringfireball brand) Markdown to have most of the code in a
> module called Text::Markdown, but to supply a script wrapper
> called Markdown.pl which provides the original functionality.
> This is what I've done in Text::Markdown currently so that
> people get the best of both worlds.

Note that this doesn’t mean giving up ease of installation that
people currently get. (Ie. non-Perl people, which is basically
every end-user, for whom it is admittedly a burden to install a
CPAN distribution, can just drop a file in some directory and
maybe +x it and that’s it.)

The model here would be Andy Lester’s _ack_ utility (an awesome
grep replacement for trees of source code): it’s available from
CPAN as the App::Ack distribution written in the regular way, as
a module using several other modules and invoked from a small
script. Anyone familiar with Perl who knows how to install
modules can install this just like any other CPAN distro.

But the distro’s build script also has a target that rounds up
all the necessary modules and pastes them into the script file,
producing a program that needs just perl itself preinstalled on
a machine; this is available as `ack-standalone` from Andy’s
site for ack. That way, people who don’t know about modules and
CPAN and all that can just copy a single file onto their machine
and be off to the races.

That seems like a perfectly suitable model to handle Markdown.pl.

Regards,
-- 
Aristotle Pagaltzis // 
___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: forking Markdown.pl?

[Tomas Doran]

On 18 Mar 2008, at 05:22, John Gruber wrote:


On Mar 16, 2008, at 3:07 PM, Jacob Rus wrote:

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”.


That's my point exactly.


And Text::Markdown *does not* have *any* other bits of syntax than  
those specified in your description of the language.


As of 1.0.17 (released a a day or two ago), I've finished the planned  
code reorganisation so that all the code lives within Text::Markdown  
- the only significant change needed was to extract a load of the  
code which actually generated the markup into their own methods..  
This actually reduced the copy-and-paste code within Markdown itself  
(e.g. the substitution part of the regexes in _DoHeaders is largely  
the same in every instance).


Now that I've re-shuffled, I'll shortly be *removing*  
Text::MultiMarkdown from the Text::Markdown distribution again, which  
should end any confusion which people may have / I may have created.


And for those of you who think Markdown is "stagnating", I have web  
server logs that show otherwise.


Indeed, it's a superb idea that only gets more relevant, and an  
inspired choice of name - it's also IMO a beautiful way of doing it  
(in contrast to, for example, Textile - which I think is horrible).


The number of implementations of a Markdown language processor in  
other languages (with new ones being announced regularly), shows that  
it isn't in any way stagnating.


However, looking at the mailing list shows that the language  
specification _is_ floundering, with different versions failing to  
correctly interoperate in edge cases, which isn't a brilliant  
situation. :(


Do I wish that I'd made more time by this point to do an official  
1.5 or 2.0 release? Yes. But the current version, as-is, is  
*gaining* popularity.


Who says that 100% of the effort for development has to be *yours*?

If you're willing to let me, I'd be more than happy to stop  
development on the CPAN modules, and back-port all my bug fixes etc  
to Markdown.pl and do any other work you consider necessary to be  
able to make a new release with your blessing.




Something called "Markdown" on CPAN, which has *my* name on it  
(because the original Text::Markdown was based on my work, and was  
in fact "Markdown", makes things worse.





Isn't that the opposite of the first point? Let me see if I can get  
this straight, so I'll spell out what I consider to be your  
objections explicitly, and you can tell me I'm stupid and correct me  
if I'm wrong.


Your objections are:

1) A Text::Markdown which implements something which isn't (just)  
Markdown (or who's internal structure is to be Markdown + some other  
stuff with the other stuff switched off) is bad.


100% agreed with you. Text::Markdown *has never* done the former, and  
the latter was a step towards unifying Text::Markdown and  
Text::MultiMarkdown from being copy & paste examples of one another  
(one with extensions), which IMO is it's own problem, that does need  
solving (and I have solved it). Apologies if you believe that  
publishing my in-between stages was a bad idea which confused things  
- however I have an active community of users that are pushing for  
various bug fixes and changes whom I'm listening and responding to as  
quickly as I'm able.


2) A Text::Markdown which isn't strongly derived from your work is bad.

Text::Markdown has *never* not been strongly derived from your work.  
Both Text::Markdown and Text::MultiMarkdown originally forked from  
Markdown 1.0.1 (Text::MultiMarkdown, admittedly by a less direct  
route), and I merged almost all of the changes from Markdown-1.0.2b8  
back into them a while ago. So the assertion that Text::Markdown  
isn't based upon your work is just plain wrong.


2) Anything *at all* called Markdown which lives on CPAN confuses the  
situation unless it's your/original Markdown.


Also agreed. However there are *a significant number* of projects  
which want to incorporate Markdown support *which cannot do so* with  
Markdown.pl - this is why Text::Markdown was spawned in the first  
place (however it became *even more* abandonware then original  
Markdown before I picked it up). If you *just* publish a Markdown as  
a script without a reasonable programatic interface then people *are  
going to do this*, as the license allows them to.


My preferred solution would be for the 'original' (i.e.  
daringfireball brand) Markdown to have most of the code in a module  
called Text::Markdown, but to supply a script wrapper called  
Markdown.pl which provides the original functionality. This is what  
I've done in Text::Markdown currently so that people get the best of  
both worlds.


The 'complete' solution for this issue is to make what is on CPAN be  
the *official* mar

Re: forking Markdown.pl?

[John Gruber]

On Mar 16, 2008, at 9:31 PM, Yuri Takhteyev wrote:


If Gruber decides he
"despises" our specification, we should simply call it something other
than "Markdown".


Just to be clear: in that case, you *must* call it something other  
than "Markdown".


-J.G.

___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: forking Markdown.pl?

[John Gruber]

On Mar 16, 2008, at 3:07 PM, Jacob Rus wrote:

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”.


That's my point exactly.

And for those of you who think Markdown is "stagnating", I have web  
server logs that show otherwise. Do I wish that I'd made more time by  
this point to do an official 1.5 or 2.0 release? Yes. But the current  
version, as-is, is *gaining* popularity.


Something called "Markdown" on CPAN, which has *my* name on it  
(because the original Text::Markdown was based on my work, and was in  
fact "Markdown", makes things worse.


-J.G.

___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: forking Markdown.pl?

[Lou Quillio]

On 3/16/08, John Gabriele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  Those three things I think would pretty much satisfy a large swath of
>  currently unsatisfied users.

You're close, IMO.  Definition lists and an explicit code block
delimiter that doesn't depend on indents (yet nevertheless nests as
written) are the big gaps.  Table syntax is just a matter of
completeness, and choosing one of the usual suspects.  Class and id
attributes are part of a different bundle and might be in the
extension space.  The ambiguity of `_`, `__`, `*`, and `**` is an
unfortunate design flaw that likewise can be sorted in the extension
space, or not.

You're right, though, that recent complaints here are legitimate where
they consider Markdown's unfinished business.  They are illegitimate
where they would lift the term 'Markdown' to an unsanctioned scope or
purpose.  Those folks can build their own tool and give it a new name.

LQ
___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: forking Markdown.pl?

[Yuri Takhteyev]

>  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.

I don't think there is any practical confusion about names.  I think
there is a difference of opinion about how communities like this ought
to function and in particular what a community like this should do
when the original author is mostly AWOL, only coming back occasionally
to throw unjustified insults on people who are trying to fix things.

Yes, many projects have gone through this.  In some the leader showed
some wisdom eventually, some got forked, some stagnated and died.  I
am pretty sure #1 is not an option for us, so I think we need to think
whether we prefer second or third option.  By "forking" of course I
don't mean forking the code (this has been done de facto a while
back), but rather coming up with a clear and forward-looking
specification that enough of us could agree on, which will give us two
versions of markdown instead of two dozen.  If Gruber decides he
"despises" our specification, we should simply call it something other
than "Markdown".  Those who are happy with Markdown.pl 1.0.1 can then
keep using it, without being bothered with all of this talk about bug
fixes.  The rest of us could move forward under a different name.

 - yuri

-- 
http://sputnik.freewisdom.org/
___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: forking Markdown.pl?

[Tomas Doran]

On 17 Mar 2008, at 00:37, John Gabriele wrote:

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.


Yeah, I see what you mean here - however I just took up the reins  
from others who had *already created* these modules, and there are  
active communities of people using both - so I don't think there's  
any value in changing now, as I'd still need to support the  
historical names...


I have added an explanatory note to the upcoming version of  
Text::Markdown to make it clear that my code is in no way endorsed by  
anyone but me. ;)



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



2. Definition lists. My favorite syntax is just:




3. The handy header id attribute syntax that PHP Markdown Extra



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.


MultiMarkdown (and by extension, my Text::MultiMarkdown) already  
supports most of your tables and header ids requests (both were  
pinched from PHP Markdown Extra by Fletcher Penny when he originally  
wrote MultiMarkdown). If you don't want to take the other parts of  
MultiMarkdown, then you can trivially disable them in  
Text::MultiMarkdown.


I think that definition lists would be a good feature to have, but  
I'm **very much not** going to add them to either Text::Markdown (as  
this is meant to be Markdown.pl compatible without extra features),  
or Text::MultiMarkdown (ditto for MultiMarkdown).


Given the recent efforts for a spec etc, I'm not considering doing  
*anything* to add any features until:


1) I've got the code better factored so that mixing additional  
features in is much easier, so that you can easily compose a markdown- 
like language.
2) I've seen where the community effort to come up with a better  
(i.e. more exact to enable interoperability) spec etc gets to..


Cheers
Tom

___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: forking Markdown.pl?

[John Gabriele]

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
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: forking Markdown.pl?

[Tomas Doran]

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.


The internals of how this is implemented currently leave a lot to be  
desired - i.e. it's basically something which extends Markdown  
(Text::MultiMarkdown), with all the extra features turned off, and  
that, I believe was John's objection.


This is in the process of being fixed currently, and a new version  
which fixes the non user visible, internal code layout issues should  
be going up within the next week or so.


Cheers
Tom

___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: forking Markdown.pl?

[Shawn Medero]

On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Jacob Rus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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".

Exactly. Microsoft was at least nice enough to call their heavily SVG
inspired markup language "XAML". (Ironically XAML is probably a better
definition of SVG at this point, because SVG has been bastardized into
a utility GUI framework by the mobile vendors. At least we still have
SVG "tiny".)

-s
___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: forking Markdown.pl?

[Jacob Rus]

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”.


-Jacob

___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: forking Markdown.pl?

[Tomas Doran]

On 16 Mar 2008, at 02:57, Seumas Mac Uilleachan wrote:


LOL that was actually funny :) (No the number is still 42)

Seriously, it is easy to get up in arms when your "creation" ends  
up becoming bastardised, whatever the form that may take (for  
better or for worse). To be honest, I have not really seen for  
myself that MultiMarkdown has a whole lot to  offer, but that's  
just my opinion.


Yeah, I do appreciate the horror of 'you baby' being bastardised ;)  
The hysterical raisins for why I'm doing what I'm doing (or, more to  
the point, why the code is currently laid out as it is) are just that  
I got a CPAN maint bit to Text::MultiMarkdown somewhat before the  
maint bit to Text::Markdown..


Of course perl tends to give me a headache  so I really can't be  
all that objective (I really tend to understand PHP better).


Hehe - I read both pretty fluently, however I'm much more pro-perl -  
but lets not start the 'which language is best' pissing competition,  
I'm all for a Markdown 'ecosystem' with a number of different  
implementations targeting different languages / spaces.


I totally respect what Michel Fortin has done - maintaining two  
parallel copies of Markdown for PHP both with and without extensions,  
however I'm not prepared to go that way myself.


I really like the fundamentals of Markdown, that what you type is  
basically what you will more or less see in a browser viewing the  
text...


Ditto, I feel that it's a very useful tool, and the evidence shows  
that there are a number of intersecting sets of people who all want  
to use Markdown for various different things with (or without)  
various different extensions.


What I want to do is:

1) Un-fuck Markdown on CPAN so that you're actually going to get  
something that works, and has a number of publicly contributed bug  
fixes and test suite. (Mostly done, except the code reorganisation to  
make Text::Markdown not 'Text::MultiMarkdown with features turned off')


2) Re-write the parser in a big way to make it quicker and more  
flexible. Mainly for my own interest - the ways that other markdown  
implementations work (I'm thinking pandoc, maruku and python- 
markdown's awesome extension mechanism) all rock my world pretty  
hard, so I want to play in my language of choice.


Once I actually start getting traction on (2) then I'll be pushing  
the new versions as 'developer' releases, so that only the brave (or  
foolish) and some of my early adoptors pick up the new crazy  
version. ;) (_waves at the Catalyst community, who have built their  
new wiki on my code, the crazy fools_)


However, if you (JG) are willing to let this beautiful creation of  
yours stagnate, then you should not take offense when others take  
up the plate (however tarnished) and take a couple baby steps  
forward...


Indeed. I look forward to the community efforts for a better spec /  
test suite so that *all of us* can make Markdown implementations that  
predictably inter-operate.


As previously noted on list, my original response in the thread which  
JG took umbrage to was meant to be controversial to help promote  
healthy discussion about where the wider community wants things to  
go, and I'm greatly looking forward to seeing Michel's promised first  
draught spec.


Cheers
Tom

P.S. Before anyone reminds me, also I promised to help merge/ 
contribute all the test cases that I've got with/to MDTest - that's  
currently on-hold till I've sorted out the Markdown/Multimarkdown  
confusion in my code, as that seems to be offending people's  
sensibilities ;)
 
___

Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: forking Markdown.pl?

[Seumas Mac Uilleachan]

LOL that was actually funny :) (No the number is still 42)

Seriously, it is easy to get up in arms when your "creation" ends up 
becoming bastardised, whatever the form that may take (for better or for 
worse). To be honest, I have not really seen for myself that 
MultiMarkdown has a whole lot to  offer, but that's just my opinion. Of 
course perl tends to give me a headache  so I really can't be all that 
objective (I really tend to understand PHP better). I really like the 
fundamentals of Markdown, that what you type is basically what you will 
more or less see in a browser viewing the text...


However, if you (JG) are willing to let this beautiful creation of yours 
stagnate, then you should not take offense when others take up the plate 
(however tarnished) and take a couple baby steps forward...


Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:

On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 7:25 PM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  

good stuff... gruber's an asshole, as far as I can tell. best, Joe



Damn.  Well, I didn't intend for that to go out to the entire list.  I
apologize, but I also found the recent response to be harsh.  I'll be
more careful with my `To:` lines in the future.  best, Joe
___
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

Re: forking Markdown.pl?

[Joseph Lorenzo Hall]

On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 7:25 PM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> good stuff... gruber's an asshole, as far as I can tell. best, Joe

Damn.  Well, I didn't intend for that to go out to the entire list.  I
apologize, but I also found the recent response to be harsh.  I'll be
more careful with my `To:` lines in the future.  best, Joe
___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: forking Markdown.pl?

[Joseph Lorenzo Hall]

good stuff... gruber's an asshole, as far as I can tell. best, Joe

On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 5:27 PM, Tomas Doran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  On 15 Mar 2008, at 02:55, John Gruber wrote:
>
>  > On Feb 28, 2008, at 12:34 PM, 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 ;)
>
>  Personally, I don't actually like (or use) the MultiMarkdown
>  extensions. As noted several times on list (http://six.pairlist.net/
>  pipermail/markdown-discuss/2008-March/001100.html and others), I *do
>  not* consider what I've done to in any way be a good solution
>  technically / internally in it's current form, and as such
>  Markdown.pl is still a better 'reference' implementation.
>
>  However I find it somewhat ironic that you can criticise an active
>  effort to actually move Markdown forwards (who's current flaws have
>  been publicly acknowledged), when it passes more of your test suite
>  than your effort does, and when you haven't even been bothered to
>  update your own website about the project since 2004, despite having
>  updated the code which can be found on your site (if you dig) much
>  more recently than this.
>
>  Don't get me wrong - the internals of the code I'm publishing are
>  *shockingly nasty*, and I *am currently* refactoring so that
>  Text::Markdown is a standalone implementation (with just the original
>  Markdown feature set), that Text::MultiMarkdown builds upon. I will
>  also shortly be providing a Markdown.pl that works for command line
>  usage and also does the MT and bloxom plugin magic.
>
>  At that point my implementation will be less buggy (by your test
>  suite), faster and more compatible with recent perl versions than any
>  version of the 'original' Markdown.pl.  I also plan to (eventually)
>  produce a Text::MarkdownExtra which adds those extensions, but I plan
>  to do it from the same codebase, in some way that is less grotty than
>  having a load (more) 'turn feature X off' switches.
>
>  The code I have at the moment, is, however a step along the road, and
>  was the most pragmatic thing to do in the short term to un-fuck and
>  update both modules.
>
>  I despise copy-pasted code, and forks for no (real) reason - seeing
>  *another two* dead copies of the same code on CPAN made me sad, and
>  so I've done *something* to take the situation forwards. Maybe if
>  you'd put the effort into maintaining a community and taking
>  Markdown.pl forwards at any time within the last 4 years, you
>  wouldn't be in a situation where people have taken 'your baby' and
>  perverted it to a point that you despise. If starting with
>  Markdown.pl and going forwards with that *had been an option*, then
>  that would have been my preferred route - but I didn't see any value
>  in producing what would have been a **fifth** perl Markdown
>  implementation.
>
>  Cheers
>  Tom
>
>  (http://svn.kulp.ch/cpan/text_multimarkdown/branches/
>  splitcode_unshell_Text-Markdown/lib/Text/Markdown.pm is where I am
>  now, more stuff needs fixing / pulling apart to be able to do
>  Text::MultiMarkdown without so much c&p code)
>
>
> ___
>  Markdown-Discuss mailing list
>  Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
>  http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
>



-- 
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
UC Berkeley School of Information
http://josephhall.org/
___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: forking Markdown.pl?

[Yuri Takhteyev]

>  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 ;)

Yeah, that was totally uncalled for.  I am sure John could give a rip
about what the list thinks about this kind of contributing, but I am
with you 100%.

 - yuri

-- 
http://sputnik.freewisdom.org/
___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: forking Markdown.pl?

[Tomas Doran]

On 15 Mar 2008, at 02:55, John Gruber wrote:


On Feb 28, 2008, at 12:34 PM, 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 ;)


Personally, I don't actually like (or use) the MultiMarkdown  
extensions. As noted several times on list (http://six.pairlist.net/ 
pipermail/markdown-discuss/2008-March/001100.html and others), I *do  
not* consider what I've done to in any way be a good solution  
technically / internally in it's current form, and as such  
Markdown.pl is still a better 'reference' implementation.


However I find it somewhat ironic that you can criticise an active  
effort to actually move Markdown forwards (who's current flaws have  
been publicly acknowledged), when it passes more of your test suite  
than your effort does, and when you haven't even been bothered to  
update your own website about the project since 2004, despite having  
updated the code which can be found on your site (if you dig) much  
more recently than this.


Don't get me wrong - the internals of the code I'm publishing are  
*shockingly nasty*, and I *am currently* refactoring so that  
Text::Markdown is a standalone implementation (with just the original  
Markdown feature set), that Text::MultiMarkdown builds upon. I will  
also shortly be providing a Markdown.pl that works for command line  
usage and also does the MT and bloxom plugin magic.


At that point my implementation will be less buggy (by your test  
suite), faster and more compatible with recent perl versions than any  
version of the 'original' Markdown.pl.  I also plan to (eventually)  
produce a Text::MarkdownExtra which adds those extensions, but I plan  
to do it from the same codebase, in some way that is less grotty than  
having a load (more) 'turn feature X off' switches.


The code I have at the moment, is, however a step along the road, and  
was the most pragmatic thing to do in the short term to un-fuck and  
update both modules.


I despise copy-pasted code, and forks for no (real) reason - seeing  
*another two* dead copies of the same code on CPAN made me sad, and  
so I've done *something* to take the situation forwards. Maybe if  
you'd put the effort into maintaining a community and taking  
Markdown.pl forwards at any time within the last 4 years, you  
wouldn't be in a situation where people have taken 'your baby' and  
perverted it to a point that you despise. If starting with  
Markdown.pl and going forwards with that *had been an option*, then  
that would have been my preferred route - but I didn't see any value  
in producing what would have been a **fifth** perl Markdown  
implementation.


Cheers
Tom

(http://svn.kulp.ch/cpan/text_multimarkdown/branches/ 
splitcode_unshell_Text-Markdown/lib/Text/Markdown.pm is where I am  
now, more stuff needs fixing / pulling apart to be able to do  
Text::MultiMarkdown without so much c&p code)

___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: forking Markdown.pl?

[John Gabriele]

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 11:13 PM, Lou Quillio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]  But `markdown.pl` is asleep.

Can anyone please point me to the very newest version of
`Markdown.pl`? Is it
http://daringfireball.net/projects/downloads/Markdown_1.0.2b8.tbz
(from May '07) ?

Thanks.
---John
___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: forking Markdown.pl?

[Lou Quillio]

On 3/14/08, John Gruber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.

Agree.  But `markdown.pl` is asleep.  Bless Michel's (and Andrea's)
work and let's get on with it.

LQ
___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: forking Markdown.pl?

[John Gruber]

On Feb 28, 2008, at 12:34 PM, 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.


-J.G.
___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: forking Markdown.pl?

[Tomas Doran]

Sorry for the delay in responding, the weekend happened - and it  
mostly involved moving my brother in law house rather than reading  
email...


On 29 Feb 2008, at 16:04, david parsons wrote:


In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tomas Doran   wrote:

Text::Markdown *does not* extend the original Markdown syntax *in any
way*.


Yes.   you said "and Text::MultiMarkdown" which provoked
my comments.  I'm sorry -- I  misunderstood you.


No worries :)

They're actually using the same codebase, and currently  
Text::Markdown is a reasonably nasty hack to switch all the  
MultiMarkdown additions off...


In the longer term, I'm trying to find a more parser-like way of  
doing things, so that each module becomes just a composition of a  
number of 'features'. You can then trivially extend (or even build  
your own variant of a makrdown-like language) by compositing the  
features differently to one of the default dialects..


But a complete parser re-write is a long way off (as I don't have  
that much time), but whilst I'm slowly getting there - it'd be great  
to have a spec / test suite evolve from the community that was solid  
enough that I had confidence that the rebuilt parser was going to "do  
the right thing" in the same way as both the original and other  
implementations..



What I'd love, too, is to see is to have the spec nailed down and
blessed by John Gruber, at the very least so people don't have to
trawl through markdown.discuss and 30 or so individual
implementations to figure what the state of the art is.   It's
somewhat less ego-ridden than replacing the reference spec.


Spec and test suite, but yes, totally.

As I've already stated, I'll be jumping on any bandwagons that emerge  
from this discussion, as will a number of the other people on the  
list who are maintaining markdown implementations, so I'm extremely  
pleased, as 'the community' seems to actually be moving forward in a  
really positive way. :)


Cheers
Tom

___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: forking Markdown.pl?

[Tomas Doran]

On 29 Feb 2008, at 19:29, Yuri Takhteyev wrote:

 Text::Markdown *does not* extend the original Markdown syntax *in  
any

 way*.


Well, I don't know if agree with this reading.


Good! My original comments were somewhat deliberately inflamatory to  
try and provoke discussion - which seems to have been a success! :)



Text:Markdown just imports Text:MultiMarkdown and disables some
features.  While it might behave like the original markdown, it goes a
long way in terms of blurring the boundary between Markdown and
MultiMarkdown.  And using it as a reference implementation would mean
sending maintainers of other implementations hunting through
MultiMarkdown code trying to figure out what features are "standard"
and what features are "extra".


As noted in my original mail, I didn't in any way suggest that I  
considered my code's time had come.


As yes - currently that way that this is implemented leaves *a lot*  
to be desired.


Re-reading my original email - I didn't term this strongly enough:


On 28 Feb 2008, at 17:34, Tomas Doran wrote:
I'd like to get to a point where I'm a little more happy with the  
code, and then I'll start promoting this as a 'true' fork, or, if  
I can get John to agree and approve - I'd like to become the  
'official' maintained version which is linked from daringfireball.




When I said 'a little more happy with the code', I meant 'un-fuck the  
whole mess internally' ;_)


However, from an *external* perspective, I believe that my code is  
very useable, and has solved more nasty / edge cases than either  
Markdown.pl or MultiMarkdown.pl.


I wasn't, however - prepared to spend my effort maintaining 2  
different implementations by copy-pasting code between them, that  
just sucks :)


Cheers
Tom

___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: forking Markdown.pl?

[Yuri Takhteyev]

>  Text::Markdown *does not* extend the original Markdown syntax *in any
>  way*.

Well, I don't know if agree with this reading.

Text:Markdown just imports Text:MultiMarkdown and disables some
features.  While it might behave like the original markdown, it goes a
long way in terms of blurring the boundary between Markdown and
MultiMarkdown.  And using it as a reference implementation would mean
sending maintainers of other implementations hunting through
MultiMarkdown code trying to figure out what features are "standard"
and what features are "extra".

 - yuri
___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: forking Markdown.pl?

[Joseph Lorenzo Hall]

On 29 Feb 2008 08:04:31 -0800, david parsons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What I'd love, too, is to see is to have the spec nailed down and
> blessed by John Gruber, at the very least so people don't have to
> trawl through markdown.discuss and 30 or so individual
> implementations to figure what the state of the art is.   It's
> somewhat less ego-ridden than replacing the reference spec.

I wonder if it's even necessary to get Gruber's blessing.  That is, if
the spec laid down a few principles from which Gruber created markdown
(which he's pretty explicit about in his web-available markdown
stuff), then we could have the "spirit of Gruber" in a policy-sense
and not have to rely on him to do anything (although he'd be welcome
to comment).  Something like:

* A new feature shall not be added to Markdown [syntax|parser|etc]
unless it is intuitively readable in plain text.
...

-- 
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
UC Berkeley School of Information
http://josephhall.org/
___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: forking Markdown.pl?

[david parsons]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tomas Doran   wrote:
>
>On 29 Feb 2008, at 01:00, david parsons wrote:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Tomas Doran   wrote:
>>>
>>> On 27 Feb 2008, at 23:36, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
 Has anyone thought of forking and maintaining Markdown.pl (hopefully
 with Gruber's blessing) to fix some of the known bugs?
>>>
>>> I'm actively maintaining the CPAN modules Text::Markdown, and
>>> Text::MultiMarkdown, and longer term, I'd like these to become the
>>> canonical distribution.
>>
>>  Personally, I don't think that would be a very good idea.  Not
>>  because there's anything wrong with your implementation, but
>>  because the current Markdown.pl sticks fairly close to the syntax
>>  document while your modules extend it in a variety of ways.
>
>Text::Markdown *does not* extend the original Markdown syntax *in any  
>way*.

Yes.   you said "and Text::MultiMarkdown" which provoked
my comments.  I'm sorry -- I  misunderstood you.

>I'd very much like there to be a community effort to come to a (more  
>exact) spec (and test cases) for the 'official' Markdown language,  
>which everyone can then implement to, but this effort would *have* to  
>consider that people do want to extend Markdown in various different  
>ways...

Yes.  

What I'd love, too, is to see is to have the spec nailed down and
blessed by John Gruber, at the very least so people don't have to
trawl through markdown.discuss and 30 or so individual
implementations to figure what the state of the art is.   It's
somewhat less ego-ridden than replacing the reference spec.


-david "add snarky comment about ANSI markdown here" parsons
___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: forking Markdown.pl?

[Michel Fortin]

Le 2008-02-29 à 6:35, Tomas Doran a écrit :


On 29 Feb 2008, at 05:17, Michel Fortin wrote:



...  And if Markdown.pm keeps evolving (which it should), does
this mean that we would now be on the hook for diffing Markdown.pm
code daily to find out what new features has become official?


That's how I've been keeping in sync with Markdown.pl while it was  
updated (diffing each release). This is practical only when the  
code is kept pretty similar, as in PHP Markdown vs. Markdown.pl.


I don't see that our community & spec being broken is a good reason  
for the reference implementation to not fix bugs.. However I do  
appreciate the pragmatism of what you're saying - I myself have done  
quite a lot of diffing in-between markdowns ;)




Hum, while it's difficult to spec Markdown because its author  
doesn't seem so much interested, I think creating a spec for  
Markdown Extra is possible. I could host it on my website,  
alongside PHP Markdown Extra, and I could change PHP Markdown Extra  
to fit that spec. It'll take some time to write though, and I'm not  
sure in what form the grammar should be expressed, but I suppose it  
could be done.


I think that it *should* be done. If a community effort to write a  
spec / standardise emerges then I'm more than happy to join / make  
my code comply.


I'll try to come up with something in a few days. It'll be incomplete,  
but we'll be able to discuss of the direction to take more clearly.


I'm maintaining MDTest for that. If anyone wants a new test case to  
be added to MDTest, I'll gladly accept it. If anyone wants to  
dispute one of MDTest's expected result, I'm open to discussion,  
preferably on this list so that everybody can take part.


...


I've stolen this into Text::Markdown and Text::MultiMarkdown, but I  
think that some chunks of it fail (even though a lot works).


I'll find some time to look back into it, and post to the list with  
my conclusions, as I've probably got a whole chunk of test cases  
that I want to add, and I'm all for a community maintained test  
suite of Markdown (and it's various dialects) :)


Great. Having more cases in the test suite will also help to write a  
spec, as it'll highlight the edge cases and tell us how we want them  
to be parsed.



Michel Fortin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://michelf.com/


___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: forking Markdown.pl?

[Michel Fortin]

Le 2008-02-29 à 0:23, Andrea Censi a écrit :


Hum, while it's difficult to spec Markdown because its author doesn't
seem so much interested, I think creating a spec for Markdown Extra  
is
possible. I could host it on my website, alongside PHP Markdown  
Extra,

and I could change PHP Markdown Extra to fit that spec.


If you do write a spec for Markdown Extra, I'll make sure Maruku
conforms to it.


Great.


Anyway, a spec for Markdown Extra would contain a spec for Markdown as
well, wouldn't it?


Yeah, in a way. I could even distinguish in the spec the parts which  
should be ignored to get a plain Markdown parser based on the Markdown  
Extra syntax definition.


The main point of writing a spec for Markdown Extra instead of  
Markdown is that I can give it a more official status than if it was  
for Markdown.



Michel Fortin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://michelf.com/


___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: forking Markdown.pl?

[Tomas Doran]

On 29 Feb 2008, at 01:00, david parsons wrote:


In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tomas Doran   wrote:


On 27 Feb 2008, at 23:36, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:

Has anyone thought of forking and maintaining Markdown.pl (hopefully
with Gruber's blessing) to fix some of the known bugs?


I'm actively maintaining the CPAN modules Text::Markdown, and
Text::MultiMarkdown, and longer term, I'd like these to become the
canonical distribution.


 Personally, I don't think that would be a very good idea.  Not
 because there's anything wrong with your implementation, but
 because the current Markdown.pl sticks fairly close to the syntax
 document while your modules extend it in a variety of ways.


Text::Markdown *does not* extend the original Markdown syntax *in any  
way*.


My implementation does fix a number of bugs / edge cases that aren't  
covered in John's test suite, but it *does not* add any extra features.


If Text::Markdown behaves in any way that differs from John's  
Markdown.pl, it should be as either the written spec or test cases  
aren't clear, and what Text::Markdown is doing should obviously be  
'more correct'.


If anyone can point out that I'm wrong on anything (with the test  
case you're using), then I will surely fix the bug and add your test  
case, as 'original' brand Markdown compliance is an explicit goal of  
Text::Markdown.



 The fact that Markdown.pl is moving very slowly is a feature
 when it's the reference implementation.   It makes it much
 easier for new implementations to follow the spec when there's
 a stationary reference that can be used for auditing.


With all due respect, I think that describing the state of the  
reference implementation as a feature (as opposed to a bug) is a  
complete crock of shit.


As an example:

- L1I1
- L1I2
1. L2I1
2. L2I2

In this case (as previously discussed on list), Markdown.pl will do  
*clearly* the wrong thing. Are you saying that this is a deliberate  
feature, and not a bug that should be fixed?


Also - which version of Markdown.pl do you consider the reference  
implementation? The version actually linked from the daringfireball  
markdown page? As this isn't the most recent version that's  
available / that John produced, and the newer version(s) fix a load  
of bugs (all in edge cases - exactly like the ones that I've been  
fixing).


And what version of the test suite is canonical? No version of  
Markdown.pl passes the latest version of the reference test suite,  
but my code does - does that mean that my module is the reference  
implementation? John? Bueller? Anyone?



I very much appreciate all the *other* implementations of Markdown  
(you'll notice that I credit all the ones I've looked at in the docs  
of my module), and I've stolen their test suites, but many / most of  
them introduce different 'features', which don't conform to  
daringfireball brand Markdown.


I'd very much like there to be a community effort to come to a (more  
exact) spec (and test cases) for the 'official' Markdown language,  
which everyone can then implement to, but this effort would *have* to  
consider that people do want to extend Markdown in various different  
ways...



Doing 'what the community' wants is a much less trivial problem than  
knocking off a Markdown implementation that works for you in  
$language_of_choice. However I for one think that we (the community)  
can (and should) do better than a 'reference' implementation with  
known unfixed bugs that was last officially updated over 4 years ago.


Don't get me wrong, I've got massive respect for John for the  
original idea and implementation - I'm not smart enough to have  
thought of it first, and, at best, I'm doing incremental improvements  
on an idea that he had. However conversations on the list such as the  
Markdown mime type are pretty pointless IMO unless we can actually  
define what Markdown is, without pointing to a spec with lots of  
(widely known and discussed) holes, and a shonky perl script that  
doesn't work right on recent versions of perl!


Cheers
Tom

___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: forking Markdown.pl?

[Tomas Doran]

On 28 Feb 2008, at 23:04, Yuri Takhteyev wrote:


 I'd like to get to a point where I'm a little more happy with the
 code, and then I'll start promoting this as a 'true' fork, or, if I
 can get John to agree and approve - I'd like to become the  
'official'

 maintained version which is linked from daringfireball.


I am sure Markdown.pm will make life much simpler for those using
Markdown with Perl.  As a maintainer of a markdown module in a
different language, however, I am not as excited about the idea of a
new "official" implementation.


Can we change the word "official" for the word "reference", which is  
much more in line with what I actually meant.



In fact, I think a new official
implementation is the last thing we need, since in the absence of a
clear spec, a new official implementation would be a source of great
confusion, especially if the new implementation suddenly adds a large
number of undocumented features.


Indeed.

1) I'm not adding features to the Text::Markdown language.
2) I do however support a number of options (most of the things that  
were hard coded globals in Markdown.pl can now be configured). These  
*are all documented*, and have unit tests.



  Would this now make all of "Markdown
Extra" official?  (And give us two under-defined specs instead of
one.)  Or just those parts of Markdown Extra that Markdown.pm
implements?


The latter, given that it doesn't implement *any* of them :)


  And if Markdown.pm keeps evolving (which it should), does
this mean that we would now be on the hook for diffing Markdown.pm
code daily to find out what new features has become official?


Nope, I think that a 'formal' channel for discussing things like this  
is needed. That'd probably be this list. The thing that we're missing  
is a 'formal' / 'official' way to get a conclusion from these  
discussions reached and documented.



  Note
that I am not against the new features in Markdown Extra.  I added
some of them in markdown.py and I would add more or even all if we
could agree to make them official.  But I want to implement them
against a spec, not against a perl module.  I also think some of those
features should be discussed first.


Totally agree. However, the fact that Markdown.pl *is* the reference  
implementation (despite it's known bugs), is very sad.


I'd really like a spec (or set of specs, for different dialects) that  
we could sanely write code against, however I strongly feel that the  
reference implementation should stick like glue to the original  
Markdown feature set, and only fix bugs and inconsistencies.



Perhaps there is a need for a better _perl_ implementation (or a few,
competition is fun), but as far as "official" goes, we need a
comprehensive and up-to-date spec and a test suite against which all
implementations could be measured.


Here here, I *strongly* agree with this. One of the main things I've  
been trying to do is get a really good test suite together which can  
be used as a yardstick, and I'll happily jump on the bandwagon and  
contribute (and code to) any community effort for a better spec. :)


Cheers
Tom

___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: forking Markdown.pl?

[Tomas Doran]

On 29 Feb 2008, at 05:17, Michel Fortin wrote:



...  And if Markdown.pm keeps evolving (which it should), does
this mean that we would now be on the hook for diffing Markdown.pm
code daily to find out what new features has become official?


That's how I've been keeping in sync with Markdown.pl while it was  
updated (diffing each release). This is practical only when the  
code is kept pretty similar, as in PHP Markdown vs. Markdown.pl.


I don't see that our community & spec being broken is a good reason  
for the reference implementation to not fix bugs.. However I do  
appreciate the pragmatism of what you're saying - I myself have done  
quite a lot of diffing in-between markdowns ;)


Hum, while it's difficult to spec Markdown because its author  
doesn't seem so much interested, I think creating a spec for  
Markdown Extra is possible. I could host it on my website,  
alongside PHP Markdown Extra, and I could change PHP Markdown Extra  
to fit that spec. It'll take some time to write though, and I'm not  
sure in what form the grammar should be expressed, but I suppose it  
could be done.


I think that it *should* be done. If a community effort to write a  
spec / standardise emerges then I'm more than happy to join / make my  
code comply.


I'm maintaining MDTest for that. If anyone wants a new test case to  
be added to MDTest, I'll gladly accept it. If anyone wants to  
dispute one of MDTest's expected result, I'm open to discussion,  
preferably on this list so that everybody can take part.


Although it's lacking its proper web page, MDTest and its download  
location have been previously announced on this list. Here are a  
few interesting links about MDTest:


 -  Latest release announcement:


 -  Download link for latest release:

 -  GIT repository:



I've stolen this into Text::Markdown and Text::MultiMarkdown, but I  
think that some chunks of it fail (even though a lot works).


I'll find some time to look back into it, and post to the list with  
my conclusions, as I've probably got a whole chunk of test cases that  
I want to add, and I'm all for a community maintained test suite of  
Markdown (and it's various dialects) :)


Cheers
Tom



___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: forking Markdown.pl?

[Andrea Censi]

>  Hum, while it's difficult to spec Markdown because its author doesn't
>  seem so much interested, I think creating a spec for Markdown Extra is
>  possible. I could host it on my website, alongside PHP Markdown Extra,
>  and I could change PHP Markdown Extra to fit that spec.

If you do write a spec for Markdown Extra, I'll make sure Maruku
conforms to it.

Anyway, a spec for Markdown Extra would contain a spec for Markdown as
well, wouldn't it?

-- 
Andrea Censi
PhD student, Control & Dynamical Systems, Caltech
http://www.cds.caltech.edu/~andrea/
"Life is too important to be taken seriously" (Oscar Wilde)
___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: forking Markdown.pl?

[Michel Fortin]

Le 2008-02-28 à 18:04, Yuri Takhteyev a écrit :


I am sure Markdown.pm will make life much simpler for those using
Markdown with Perl.  As a maintainer of a markdown module in a
different language, however, I am not as excited about the idea of a
new "official" implementation.


Same here.


...  And if Markdown.pm keeps evolving (which it should), does
this mean that we would now be on the hook for diffing Markdown.pm
code daily to find out what new features has become official?


That's how I've been keeping in sync with Markdown.pl while it was  
updated (diffing each release). This is practical only when the code  
is kept pretty similar, as in PHP Markdown vs. Markdown.pl.


Note that I am not against the new features in Markdown Extra.  I  
added

some of them in markdown.py and I would add more or even all if we
could agree to make them official.  But I want to implement them
against a spec, not against a perl module.  I also think some of those
features should be discussed first.


Hum, while it's difficult to spec Markdown because its author doesn't  
seem so much interested, I think creating a spec for Markdown Extra is  
possible. I could host it on my website, alongside PHP Markdown Extra,  
and I could change PHP Markdown Extra to fit that spec. It'll take  
some time to write though, and I'm not sure in what form the grammar  
should be expressed, but I suppose it could be done.



Perhaps there is a need for a better _perl_ implementation (or a few,
competition is fun), but as far as "official" goes, we need a
comprehensive and up-to-date spec and a test suite against which all
implementations could be measured.


I'm maintaining MDTest for that. If anyone wants a new test case to be  
added to MDTest, I'll gladly accept it. If anyone wants to dispute one  
of MDTest's expected result, I'm open to discussion, preferably on  
this list so that everybody can take part.


Although it's lacking its proper web page, MDTest and its download  
location have been previously announced on this list. Here are a few  
interesting links about MDTest:


 -  First version announcement:


 -  Latest release announcement:


 -  Download link for latest release:

 -  GIT repository:



Michel Fortin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://michelf.com/


___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: forking Markdown.pl?

[david parsons]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tomas Doran   wrote:
>
>On 27 Feb 2008, at 23:36, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
>
>> As many of you know, when a piece of open-source software languishes
>> with bugs for 3 years it's often forked  Markdown.pl is licensed under
>>  the BSD license. (do `>tail -35 /path/to/Markdown.pl`)
>>
>> Has anyone thought of forking and maintaining Markdown.pl (hopefully
>> with Gruber's blessing) to fix some of the known bugs?
>>
>> I'm not volunteering (I'd be horrible)... just seeing if it's time to
>> have that discussion.
>
>I'm actively maintaining the CPAN modules Text::Markdown, and  
>Text::MultiMarkdown, and longer term, I'd like these to become the  
>canonical distribution.

 Personally, I don't think that would be a very good idea.  Not
 because there's anything wrong with your implementation, but
 because the current Markdown.pl sticks fairly close to the syntax
 document while your modules extend it in a variety of ways.

 The fact that Markdown.pl is moving very slowly is a feature
 when it's the reference implementation.   It makes it much
 easier for new implementations to follow the spec when there's
 a stationary reference that can be used for auditing.


 -david parsons
___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: forking Markdown.pl?

[Yuri Takhteyev]

>  I'd like to get to a point where I'm a little more happy with the
>  code, and then I'll start promoting this as a 'true' fork, or, if I
>  can get John to agree and approve - I'd like to become the 'official'
>  maintained version which is linked from daringfireball.

I am sure Markdown.pm will make life much simpler for those using
Markdown with Perl.  As a maintainer of a markdown module in a
different language, however, I am not as excited about the idea of a
new "official" implementation.  In fact, I think a new official
implementation is the last thing we need, since in the absence of a
clear spec, a new official implementation would be a source of great
confusion, especially if the new implementation suddenly adds a large
number of undocumented features.  Would this now make all of "Markdown
Extra" official?  (And give us two under-defined specs instead of
one.)  Or just those parts of Markdown Extra that Markdown.pm
implements?  And if Markdown.pm keeps evolving (which it should), does
this mean that we would now be on the hook for diffing Markdown.pm
code daily to find out what new features has become official?  Note
that I am not against the new features in Markdown Extra.  I added
some of them in markdown.py and I would add more or even all if we
could agree to make them official.  But I want to implement them
against a spec, not against a perl module.  I also think some of those
features should be discussed first.

Perhaps there is a need for a better _perl_ implementation (or a few,
competition is fun), but as far as "official" goes, we need a
comprehensive and up-to-date spec and a test suite against which all
implementations could be measured.

- yuri

--
http://sputnik.freewisdom.org/
___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: forking Markdown.pl?

[Tomas Doran]

On 27 Feb 2008, at 23:36, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:


As many of you know, when a piece of open-source software languishes
with bugs for 3 years it's often forked  Markdown.pl is licensed under
 the BSD license. (do `>tail -35 /path/to/Markdown.pl`)

Has anyone thought of forking and maintaining Markdown.pl (hopefully
with Gruber's blessing) to fix some of the known bugs?

I'm not volunteering (I'd be horrible)... just seeing if it's time to
have that discussion.


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 pass all of John's latest test suite, and all of Fletcher's  
MultiMarkdown test suite + I've fixed a number of other bugs as I go  
along. I'm also part way through re-writing the list parser (as it's  
one of the hardest cases), and plan to end up with a 'proper' parser  
that gives you a parse tree, and is pluggable.


I don't actually, however, provide a Markdown.pl script wrapper in  
the distribution - but if there is call for me to, I can trivially  
(it was somewhere in my Todo list anyway).


I've seemingly got a number of active projects using the code,  
including the Catalyst (perl web framework) guys who are building  
their new wiki against it (http://catwiki.toeat.com)


http://search.cpan.org/~bobtfish/Text-Markdown-1.0.16/lib/Text/ 
Markdown.pm


I'd like to get to a point where I'm a little more happy with the  
code, and then I'll start promoting this as a 'true' fork, or, if I  
can get John to agree and approve - I'd like to become the 'official'  
maintained version which is linked from daringfireball.


If anyone wants to pitch in and help with anything I'm doing /  
contribute to building a more formal syntax description etc, then I'm  
more than willing to take patches and/or hand out commit bits to the  
SVN repos where I'm keeping all the branches / development versions...


Cheers
Tom

___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: forking Markdown.pl?

[Pedro Melo]

 Hi,

On Feb 28, 2008, at 4:48 PM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 12:38 AM, Pedro Melo  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>

 why not using other "versions" of Markdown, like MultiMarkdown for
 example?


Yeah, after I wrote this I realized that the other versions were, in a
sense, forks.  One thing that hasn't been "forked" is the syntax
document, though.  Someone who could give a rip (or is it "doesn't
give a rip" in this case?) might want to take a shot at a spec.  I
could give a rip so I should probably just shut the hell up. :)


The MultiMarkdown page has good docs on their extensions and usage.

Best regards,
--
Pedro Melo
Blog: http://www.simplicidade.org/notes/
XMPP ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use XMPP!


___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: forking Markdown.pl?

[Aristotle Pagaltzis]

* Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-02-28 00:40]:
> As many of you know, when a piece of open-source software
> languishes with bugs for 3 years it's often forked

No, that’s not what I know.

What I know is that projects get forked if they have developers
who irreconcilably disagree with the current maintainer about the
future direction of the project. (If the current maintainer has
gone AWOL, that’s merely a special case of this scenario.) But
the new maintainer comes first, and the decision to forks comes
afterwards, because without a new maintainer, there is no fork.

Therefore:

> I'm not volunteering (I'd be horrible)... just seeing if it's
> time to have that discussion.

If you’re not volunteering and no one else does, then “having
that discussion” is pretty pointless.

Regards,
-- 
Aristotle Pagaltzis // 
___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: forking Markdown.pl?

[Joseph Lorenzo Hall]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 12:38 AM, Pedro Melo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>
>  why not using other "versions" of Markdown, like MultiMarkdown for
>  example?

Yeah, after I wrote this I realized that the other versions were, in a
sense, forks.  One thing that hasn't been "forked" is the syntax
document, though.  Someone who could give a rip (or is it "doesn't
give a rip" in this case?) might want to take a shot at a spec.  I
could give a rip so I should probably just shut the hell up. :)

best, Joe

-- 
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
UC Berkeley School of Information
http://josephhall.org/
___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Re: forking Markdown.pl?

[Pedro Melo]

Hi,

why not using other "versions" of Markdown, like MultiMarkdown for  
example?


Best regards,

On Feb 27, 2008, at 11:36 PM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:

As many of you know, when a piece of open-source software languishes
with bugs for 3 years it's often forked  Markdown.pl is licensed under
 the BSD license. (do `>tail -35 /path/to/Markdown.pl`)

Has anyone thought of forking and maintaining Markdown.pl (hopefully
with Gruber's blessing) to fix some of the known bugs?

I'm not volunteering (I'd be horrible)... just seeing if it's time to
have that discussion.

best, Joe

--
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
UC Berkeley School of Information
http://josephhall.org/
___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss


--
Pedro Melo
Blog: http://www.simplicidade.org/notes/
XMPP ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use XMPP!


___
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss