Markdown Extra Specification (First Draft)

Jacob Rus jacobolus at
Wed May 7 16:40:03 EDT 2008

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.

(not trying to rain on parades here :)

More information about the Markdown-Discuss mailing list