Ciao PMario Excellent quick overview post! That really illuminates the issues in the OP..
I'll reply tomorrow in more detail. Tx, TT On Wednesday, 20 May 2020 17:43:14 UTC+2, PMario wrote: > > Hi, > > There are several specifications, that define the text/markdown* MIME *type > and the variants thereof. File extension is .md > > text/markdown is specified at [RFC7763] The text/markdown Media Type > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7763> since March 2016. It mentions > markdown-variants in [chapter 10] > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7763#page-10> > > Some important variants are registered / described in [RFC7764] Guidance > on Markdown: Design Philosophies, Stability Strategies, and Select > Registrations <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7764> > > Common variants are: > > > - MultiMarkdown > - GitHub-Flavored Markdown > - Pandoc > - Fountain (Fountain.io) > - CommonMark > - kramdown-rfc2629 (Markdown for RFCs) > - rfc7328 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7328> (Pandoc2rfc) > - PHP Markdown Extra > > > CommonMark is the newest spec and probably the most complete, mentioned on > [page > 14] <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7764#page-14> > > Depending on the library, that is used, it may be possible to select > different variants. IMO it very much depends on the personal usecase, which > setting makes sense. > > TW default MD library (remarkable-js > <https://github.com/jonschlinkert/remarkable>) supports: CommonMark + > popular syntax extensions > <https://github.com/jonschlinkert/remarkable#syntax-extensions>. > > As Saq pointed out, the library creates it own AST, which makes it > possible to pass unknown elements to the TW parser, _after_ parsing MD. > > BUT there are some limitations. _Not_ every combination of markdown syntax > and TW syntax may produce the expected output. It is meant to be used with > "prose text" and a little bit of [[link]] magic. .... THAT's it! > > If we want to have 100% compatibility we would need to implement our own > MD variant into TW. > > ------------------------ > > There is a What if? > <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/tiddlywiki/iC1ZNZHVU8A/hoTHllayBQAJ> > thread, that I started 2017, that discusses the possibility to implement > CommonMark as a subset of the TW syntax AND create a Markdown variant that > defines the missing TW features. > > So it would be possible that "TW syntax X" would be a valid Markdown > Variant. > > have fun! > mario > > PS @Eric Shulman - Someone (not me) marked my thread > <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/tiddlywiki/iC1ZNZHVU8A/hoTHllayBQAJ> > as completed. Could you please remove it? > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/77f6a68a-469a-447c-a689-3a42af1aff16%40googlegroups.com.
