5 ms·

I don't think Common Markdown was a stupid attempt; I thought it was a praiseworthy attempt to standardise places where differing Markdown implementations diffe

by zeveb 10y ago

I don't think Common Markdown was a stupid attempt; I thought it was a praiseworthy attempt to standardise places where differing Markdown implementations differ, needlessly harming interoperability. I think that Gruber deserves a colossal amount of credit for inventing the single-most-common end-user-usable marked-up-text format around. That's independent of what he's done in the dozen years since December 2004, which is the last update he made to his Markdown project's page.

Ajedi32 10y ago
This. As far as I'm concerned, CommonMark _is_ the canonical standard for Markdown. Gruber has contributed nothing to Markdown in over 12 years, and has refused to participate in anyone else's efforts to improve the spec. That's more than enough justification for a fork, and as far as I'm aware there are no other actively maintained Markdown specifications in existence at the moment, so CommonMark _is_ the standard.
hallman76 10y ago
Gruber gets credit for creating it AND for holding it back. Markdown needs a common standard. Gruber needs to hand Markdown over to folks who will let his legacy shine.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  You write "credit for... holding it back" in an ironic sense, but ISTM that's really the only reason that markdown has seen wide adoption while numerous other simple markup languages have not. There haven't been dozens of different doodads grafted on at different times in different fashions to confuse users and converters, so people just use it and it just works.
  - Ajedi32 10y ago
    > There haven't been dozens of different doodads grafted on at different times in different fashions to confuse users and converters Oh, but there have. For instance, code fences are not part of the original markdown spec, but are commonly supported in just about every implementation out there, and are rendered in about [7 different ways][1] depending on which converter you're using. Play around for a little in BabelMark and you'll see why a standard is needed. [1]: http://johnmacfarlane.net/babelmark2/?normalize=1&text=%60%60%60%0Acode+here%0A%60%60%60 http://johnmacfarlane.net/babelmark2/?normalize=1&text=%60%6...
    - jessaustin 10y ago
      Well that's one doodad, and apparently it has had the effect I predicted. Never mind, go ahead and have fun with your new super-markdown. One rather doubts it will displace actual markdown anytime soon.
      - Ajedi32 10y ago
        That's exactly the problem: there is no "actual Markdown". Just a bunch of mutually incompatible competing implementations. If something like CommonMark had existed from the beginning, we wouldn't have this issue because everyone would be following the standard.
    - marssaxman 10y ago
      What is a "code fence"?
      - Ajedi32 10y ago
        It's an alternate way of annotating code blocks which doesn't require you to indent every line (because that can be tedious for longer code snippets), and allows you to explicitly specify the language to use for syntax highlighting. Example: ```javascript // JavaScript code here ``` It's used extensively on GitHub.
        marssaxman 10y ago
        Thanks. I've seen that but hadn't connected the name to the syntax.
  - pluma 10y ago
    Except that's not what happened. GitHub-flavoured Markdown was pretty widespread before CommonMark arrived. Also the problem with his "original specification" is that there isn't one. There's a description that demonstrates the basic syntax and a buggy implementation in Perl that isn't being maintained.
    - jessaustin 10y ago
      Sure, and every time I use such a "custom" feature, I have to look up how it works. If markdown were less static, the whole language might be like that. That's fine for some uses, but not when the use is a simpler, more memorable way to generate html.
      - vertex-four 10y ago
        If Markdown were less static, you wouldn't have to find random implementation-specific documentation describing custom features - they'd be defined in the spec. You also wouldn't wind up in situations where two different Markdown implementations interpret the same Markdown text in two different ways, which happens surprisingly often. Markdown text is therefore always written for use with a specific implementation, and can't realistically be used as a text interchange format in e.g. email or any other federated system with multiple rendering implementations.
- niftich 10y ago
  Markdown is kind of like CSV, where common usage pre-dated both Gruber's script and future attempts at standardization. His co-author Aaron Swartz confirms [1] that Markdown was greatly inspired by (and is largely compatible with) the way people used to 'mark up' plain text in ways that were emergent and natural to them back in the email days. Therefore, the lack of formal syntax is, to them, a feature. This doesn't prevent forks, of course, but anyone who wants to perpetuate the 'Markdown legacy' should consider this. [1] http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/001189 http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/001189
  - Ajedi32 10y ago
    I understand the appeal of basing Markdown's syntax off of the way people naturally tend to structure unformatted text (and in fact, that's one of the reasons I love Markdown so much), but I'm still really confused as to why anyone would regard syntactic ambiguity as a feature. Leaving any sort of ambiguity in your spec inevitably leads to different implementations resolving those ambiguities in different ways, which confuses users and causes problems with interoperability. Is there some sort of upside to these syntactic ambiguities that I'm missing which might offset those obvious drawbacks?
MBCook 10y ago
It's wasn't a stupid attempt, I think it was jackassery. I can understand the idea of wanting a very clearly defined markdown like thing. The problem was that it was called Standard Markdown, seeming to imply that it was correct and was done without the creator's consent. It was an attempted hijacking of the name. After the mess it was renamed Common Markdown which is a much better name and less offensive, but by then it had left a very bad taste in my mouth. Or they could have given it a new name and no one would have been that upset. But the announcement had personal attacks against Gruber (Ajedi32 correctly pointed out I was wrong here) and seemed to imply they were taking over stewardship and that was totally uncalled for.
- Ajedi32 10y ago
  In what way does the [original announcement][1] include "personal attacks against Gruber"? His name is only mentioned once: > Because Gruber’s syntax description leaves many aspects of the syntax undetermined How is that in any way a "personal attack"? Furthermore, Gruber was given [two separate opportunities to review the name of the project before it was published][2] (which he ignored), and after the spec was published and Gruber did object to the name, one of the developers of the spec [immediately apologised][2] and changed the name to Common Markdown. How is that "jackassery"? [1]: https://blog.codinghorror.com/standard-flavored-markdown/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/standard-flavored-markdown/ [2]: https://blog.codinghorror.com/standard-markdown-is-now-common-markdown/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/standard-markdown-is-now-commo...
  - MBCook 10y ago
    Seems you're right. I could have sworn there were personal attacks. Guess my memory is faulty. I put a note in my comment to reflect that. I think it was jackassery to presume the ability to use the name Standard Markdown without affermative consent from Gruber. They sent two emails and Gruber didn't reply. Maybe he ignored them, maybe they got lost in a torrent. I don't remember what Gruber said on his podcast (if anything, I seem to remember he didn't want to talk about it much). They took a 'ask for forgiveness' (because we don't like what you are doing/not doing) approach when I think decorum dictates an 'ask for permission' approach. If you don't get it (they didn't) then call it something else. Stack Overflow Markdown, Spolsky-down, Easymark, whatever. The implication of the term Standard Markdown is clear. WE own it, WE control it, WE'RE in charge. They didn't have permission/authority for that and did it anyway. I found that a very jackass move. I stopped following Spolsky because I lost respect for him for doing it.
accordionclown 10y ago
except gruber didn't "invent" it. he took the idea from dean allen, who developed "textile" in 2002 as "a humane web text generator". textile was used in movable type, the blogging software that gruber started with on daring fireball. he gave his system a clever name, which is important for marketing, but gruber did _not_ "invent" it. in today's lingo, he "rebranded" a great idea from somebody else. > https://medium.com/the-bower/markdown-considered-harmful-495ccfe24a52 https://medium.com/the-bower/markdown-considered-harmful-495... -bowerbird

by zeveb 10y ago

Ajedi32 10y ago

This. As far as I'm concerned, CommonMark _is_ the canonical standard for Markdown. Gruber has contributed nothing to Markdown in over 12 years, and has refused to participate in anyone else's efforts to improve the spec. That's more than enough justification for a fork, and as far as I'm aware there are no other actively maintained Markdown specifications in existence at the moment, so CommonMark _is_ the standard.

hallman76 10y ago

Gruber gets credit for creating it AND for holding it back. Markdown needs a common standard. Gruber needs to hand Markdown over to folks who will let his legacy shine.

jessaustin 10y ago
You write "credit for... holding it back" in an ironic sense, but ISTM that's really the only reason that markdown has seen wide adoption while numerous other simple markup languages have not. There haven't been dozens of different doodads grafted on at different times in different fashions to confuse users and converters, so people just use it and it just works.
- Ajedi32 10y ago
  > There haven't been dozens of different doodads grafted on at different times in different fashions to confuse users and converters Oh, but there have. For instance, code fences are not part of the original markdown spec, but are commonly supported in just about every implementation out there, and are rendered in about [7 different ways][1] depending on which converter you're using. Play around for a little in BabelMark and you'll see why a standard is needed. [1]: http://johnmacfarlane.net/babelmark2/?normalize=1&text=%60%60%60%0Acode+here%0A%60%60%60 http://johnmacfarlane.net/babelmark2/?normalize=1&text=%60%6...
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    Well that's one doodad, and apparently it has had the effect I predicted. Never mind, go ahead and have fun with your new super-markdown. One rather doubts it will displace actual markdown anytime soon.
    - Ajedi32 10y ago
      That's exactly the problem: there is no "actual Markdown". Just a bunch of mutually incompatible competing implementations. If something like CommonMark had existed from the beginning, we wouldn't have this issue because everyone would be following the standard.
  - marssaxman 10y ago
    What is a "code fence"?
    - Ajedi32 10y ago
      It's an alternate way of annotating code blocks which doesn't require you to indent every line (because that can be tedious for longer code snippets), and allows you to explicitly specify the language to use for syntax highlighting. Example: ```javascript // JavaScript code here ``` It's used extensively on GitHub.
      - marssaxman 10y ago
        Thanks. I've seen that but hadn't connected the name to the syntax.
- pluma 10y ago
  Except that's not what happened. GitHub-flavoured Markdown was pretty widespread before CommonMark arrived. Also the problem with his "original specification" is that there isn't one. There's a description that demonstrates the basic syntax and a buggy implementation in Perl that isn't being maintained.
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    Sure, and every time I use such a "custom" feature, I have to look up how it works. If markdown were less static, the whole language might be like that. That's fine for some uses, but not when the use is a simpler, more memorable way to generate html.
    - vertex-four 10y ago
      If Markdown were less static, you wouldn't have to find random implementation-specific documentation describing custom features - they'd be defined in the spec. You also wouldn't wind up in situations where two different Markdown implementations interpret the same Markdown text in two different ways, which happens surprisingly often. Markdown text is therefore always written for use with a specific implementation, and can't realistically be used as a text interchange format in e.g. email or any other federated system with multiple rendering implementations.
niftich 10y ago
Markdown is kind of like CSV, where common usage pre-dated both Gruber's script and future attempts at standardization. His co-author Aaron Swartz confirms [1] that Markdown was greatly inspired by (and is largely compatible with) the way people used to 'mark up' plain text in ways that were emergent and natural to them back in the email days. Therefore, the lack of formal syntax is, to them, a feature. This doesn't prevent forks, of course, but anyone who wants to perpetuate the 'Markdown legacy' should consider this. [1] http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/001189 http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/001189
- Ajedi32 10y ago
  I understand the appeal of basing Markdown's syntax off of the way people naturally tend to structure unformatted text (and in fact, that's one of the reasons I love Markdown so much), but I'm still really confused as to why anyone would regard syntactic ambiguity as a feature. Leaving any sort of ambiguity in your spec inevitably leads to different implementations resolving those ambiguities in different ways, which confuses users and causes problems with interoperability. Is there some sort of upside to these syntactic ambiguities that I'm missing which might offset those obvious drawbacks?

MBCook 10y ago

It's wasn't a stupid attempt, I think it was jackassery. I can understand the idea of wanting a very clearly defined markdown like thing. The problem was that it was called Standard Markdown, seeming to imply that it was correct and was done without the creator's consent. It was an attempted hijacking of the name. After the mess it was renamed Common Markdown which is a much better name and less offensive, but by then it had left a very bad taste in my mouth. Or they could have given it a new name and no one would have been that upset. But the announcement had personal attacks against Gruber (Ajedi32 correctly pointed out I was wrong here) and seemed to imply they were taking over stewardship and that was totally uncalled for.

Ajedi32 10y ago
In what way does the [original announcement][1] include "personal attacks against Gruber"? His name is only mentioned once: > Because Gruber’s syntax description leaves many aspects of the syntax undetermined How is that in any way a "personal attack"? Furthermore, Gruber was given [two separate opportunities to review the name of the project before it was published][2] (which he ignored), and after the spec was published and Gruber did object to the name, one of the developers of the spec [immediately apologised][2] and changed the name to Common Markdown. How is that "jackassery"? [1]: https://blog.codinghorror.com/standard-flavored-markdown/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/standard-flavored-markdown/ [2]: https://blog.codinghorror.com/standard-markdown-is-now-common-markdown/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/standard-markdown-is-now-commo...
- MBCook 10y ago
  Seems you're right. I could have sworn there were personal attacks. Guess my memory is faulty. I put a note in my comment to reflect that. I think it was jackassery to presume the ability to use the name Standard Markdown without affermative consent from Gruber. They sent two emails and Gruber didn't reply. Maybe he ignored them, maybe they got lost in a torrent. I don't remember what Gruber said on his podcast (if anything, I seem to remember he didn't want to talk about it much). They took a 'ask for forgiveness' (because we don't like what you are doing/not doing) approach when I think decorum dictates an 'ask for permission' approach. If you don't get it (they didn't) then call it something else. Stack Overflow Markdown, Spolsky-down, Easymark, whatever. The implication of the term Standard Markdown is clear. WE own it, WE control it, WE'RE in charge. They didn't have permission/authority for that and did it anyway. I found that a very jackass move. I stopped following Spolsky because I lost respect for him for doing it.

accordionclown 10y ago

except gruber didn't "invent" it. he took the idea from dean allen, who developed "textile" in 2002 as "a humane web text generator". textile was used in movable type, the blogging software that gruber started with on daring fireball. he gave his system a clever name, which is important for marketing, but gruber did _not_ "invent" it. in today's lingo, he "rebranded" a great idea from somebody else. > https://medium.com/the-bower/markdown-considered-harmful-495ccfe24a52 https://medium.com/the-bower/markdown-considered-harmful-495... -bowerbird