On CommonMark ...
PMario:
> 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>
Frankly, I can't see how dynamically rendered "programmatic syntax" (i.e.
markup that invokes functions specific to an implementation) could become
any standard. As far as I understand it all the simple "markups" use
HMTL/CSS substitution and it is THAT which allows inter-variant conversion.
But for anything else: WHAT are they substituting?
Maybe a basic syntax for Transclusion could be? since the concept behind it
is generalisable, but the issue would be WHAT is transcluded in specific
instances that in the current systems are application specific in their
realisation. If HTML more clearly embraced transclusion then maybe a
"markup" could too? This is a quick way of pointing out that "convertible
markup" is convertible BECAUSE its DERIVATIVE. Once its not derivative you
no longer have any shared conversion reference point.
The lack of Table support in CommonMark is ridiculous for something that
claims to be a mediating standard.
Best wishes
Josiah
--
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/74ddda7a-f42c-4fef-9311-06bbd2f71e08%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
