On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 5:08:46 PM UTC+1, Jeremy Ruston wrote: > > I simply do NOT believe that the 600 or so strictures that CommonMarkup > syntax say are essential are actually essential for most practical work. It > looks like a tall-story. When you look into it is boils down to something > more cope-able, I think. > > That’s rather my point: a putative declarative meta-markup couldn’t > achieve 100% compatibility, but that even partial compatibility would be > useful. But that’s not what Mario originally proposed. >
I did have a closer look at the commonmark rules. ... They did standardize some strange decisions. Mainly because of very popular existing MD software and variants, such as pandoc .. The new markdown spec allows the registration and usage of a variants hint <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7763#section-5>. So if we do it right, it might be possible to use text/markdown for 100% commonMark compatible stuff and text/markdown; variant=tiddlywiki ... for our TW stuff. ... Only possibel if we manage to register it!! @Jeremy btw: We should register text/vnd.tiddlywiki to be listed by the IANA. ... We may be able to use: text/vnd.tiddlywiki; variant=commonmark or variant=markdown-it or ... So imo it's not really needed to get a 100% compatibility. .. As long as we can manage the MD-zoo we would be able to create have fun! mario -- 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 post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/0f51a1f1-8325-433d-8822-cc1c2f689079%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
