Markdown Extra Specification (First Draft)

[Jacob Rus]

Sherwood Botsford wrote:

> Not to worry.  I wasn't expecting backward compatibility, so that [...] 

> THAT said, however, maintaining perfect backward compatibility slows 

> down progress.


If this is your view, you shouldn't put "markdown" in the name.


> Implementation specs:  The program should have a compiled in

> set of locations to look for the config file, a command line option, and 

> an environment option.


Wait, compiled?  Environment options?  This is getting way more complex 
than necessary.  Keep it simple, on general principle.


> Consider too, if it is truly an improvement, it can be given a


Yes, I'd guess that's unlikely.  There have been a half dozen attempts 
to "improve" markdown; I don't particularly like any of them. (no 
offense intended to those implementors)


> I agree that you need a way for people to gracefully make the 

> transition.  The best approach is a method that allows old

> and new systems to co-exist in the same environment.  If you call it 

> with a new name, there shouldn't be a problem.


The new one is unlikely to gain much mindshare unless it is a) 
unquestionably better, and b) gets used by some prominent system/tool/etc.

Good luck.
Jacob

(not trying to rain on parades here :)