4 ms·

In what way does the [original announcement][1] include "personal attacks against Gruber"? His name is only mentioned once: > Because Gruber’s syntax descripti

by 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.
- Ajedi32 10y ago
  But if you read [the apology][1] I previously linked, you'll see that Jeff Atwood (not Joel Spolsky btw; he is not involved in CommonMark in any way AFAIK) stated that the attitude you're inferring from the name "Standard Markdown" ("WE own it, WE control it, WE'RE in charge.") was never the intent: > We were simply trying to pick a name that correctly and accurately reflected our goal – to build an unambiguous flavor of Markdown. If the name we chose made inappropriate overtures about Standard Markdown being anything more than a highly specified flavor of Markdown, I apologize. Standard does have certain particular computer science meanings, as in IETF Standard, ECMA Standard. That was not our intent, it was more of an aspirational element of "what if, together, we could eventually..". You're of course free to dismiss that explanation as insincere, but I think you may be reading some malicious intent into this that simply wasn't there. [1]: https://blog.codinghorror.com/standard-markdown-is-now-common-markdown/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/standard-markdown-is-now-commo...
  - MBCook 10y ago
    Crud. Got the name wrong too huh? I remember the apology, and I understand why the name "standard" appealed to him. It's certainly what he was trying to do and normally would be a great name. Except someone else was in control of Markdown so calling your project "Standard Markdown" seems rather hostile to me (or at least rather oblivious).

by Ajedi32 10y ago

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.

Ajedi32 10y ago
But if you read [the apology][1] I previously linked, you'll see that Jeff Atwood (not Joel Spolsky btw; he is not involved in CommonMark in any way AFAIK) stated that the attitude you're inferring from the name "Standard Markdown" ("WE own it, WE control it, WE'RE in charge.") was never the intent: > We were simply trying to pick a name that correctly and accurately reflected our goal – to build an unambiguous flavor of Markdown. If the name we chose made inappropriate overtures about Standard Markdown being anything more than a highly specified flavor of Markdown, I apologize. Standard does have certain particular computer science meanings, as in IETF Standard, ECMA Standard. That was not our intent, it was more of an aspirational element of "what if, together, we could eventually..". You're of course free to dismiss that explanation as insincere, but I think you may be reading some malicious intent into this that simply wasn't there. [1]: https://blog.codinghorror.com/standard-markdown-is-now-common-markdown/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/standard-markdown-is-now-commo...
- MBCook 10y ago
  Crud. Got the name wrong too huh? I remember the apology, and I understand why the name "standard" appealed to him. It's certainly what he was trying to do and normally would be a great name. Except someone else was in control of Markdown so calling your project "Standard Markdown" seems rather hostile to me (or at least rather oblivious).