PMario, very useful post. Mainly because it gives much of the needed 
*perspective* on the Markdown Issues. Perspective is needed.

My OP partly came from frustration at folk posting "I need Markdown" with 
mainly never saying WHICH Markdown they are talking about.

Systems that are "Markdown" in practice are pretty diverse. It IS difficult 
to address the issue optimally without knowing more on specific usages or 
scope.

That was Point 1.

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 tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/e282c3db-4ec1-46b6-9cdd-aa88b55b8961%40googlegroups.com.

Reply via email to