Hi, A little bit of history, *from my point of view*. ...
Markdown <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markdown>was first published in March 2004. TiddlyWiki <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TiddlyWiki>was first published in Sept. 2004 In 2007 there has been an attempt to standardize wiki syntax, with the wiki-creole spec <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creole_(markup)>. At this time TiddlyWiki sytax did influence the creole specification. ... But the spec didn't take off. IMO because it didn't bring something new. I was "yet an other wiki syntax". Tiddlywiki had a "high" in 2007, and MD stagnated till 2009. See google trends <https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2004-01-01%202009-12-31&q=markdown,tiddlywiki>. As Joe pointed out: >>"Markdown solves the problem "make the input easy"<< I did write somewhere else. ... MD is "simple and good enough" to be useful ... and it doesn't interfere with the text source code. So the source is still human readable, without the need to render it. MD took off, as github and others "re-discoved" it to create static html sites in 2010. Github used it first "to prettify" README files ... Trends to compare TW with MD: from 2004 till now <https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=markdown,tiddlywiki>. TW-MD-github: from 2004 till now <https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=markdown,tiddlywiki,github>. ... Here we add github to the mix, which is a much, much more popular search term, which "dominates" the others. But IMO we can see a clear relation between github and MD or to be more exact github flavored markdown (gfm). On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 9:33:44 PM UTC+1, @TiddlyTweeter wrote: > > How important, in your opinion, PMario, are RFC's to TiddlyWiki's uptake? > As written above, I don't think specs are the key to success. ... But success makes specs necessary! The mime-type text/x-markdown has grown to the "de-facto standard" for static sites since 2010 ... > I can't honestly say for myself that an RFC motivated me to do anything. > At the same time I do understand they have a role. BUT is it *before* the > fact or *after*? > See the history. > In other words, for TW, WHAT exactly should we be promoting to it? > The initial markdown spec from 2004 had some flaws, which http://commonmark.org/ wanted to fix. ... BUT there are still some problems with the spec <http://spec.commonmark.org/0.28/>. If you have a closer look, there is no "table" definition. .. It's missing. AND they don't have an idea about transclusions, widgets, and other stuff that is essential for tiddlywiki. ... But as far as I can see it, at the moment they don't use syntax like <<>>, {{}}, {{{}}} or <$abc> So it will be open for "variants" > And WHY? > To drive adoption. 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 tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to tiddlywiki@googlegroups.com. 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/3ee6aaa4-5d64-4548-9142-a285e3244387%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
