4 ms·
I don't get why we need these Markdown "flavors". Most Markdown renderers allow you to pick and choose different extensions, and graphs have been possible in M
by ravenstine 7y ago
I don't get why we need these Markdown "flavors". Most Markdown renderers allow you to pick and choose different extensions, and graphs have been possible in Markdown for a long time with things like Mermaid, which I think does graphs a lot better than this time consuming ASCII-art format.
- rcthompson 7y agoI don't think the selling point on this is the flavor so much as the "add a line to your markdown and now it's an browser-viewable HTML file" aspect.
- jimws 7y agoTake a look at https://github.com/susam/texme https://github.com/susam/texme. It does not introduce a new Markdown flavor. Just the regular Markdown + support for Latex.
- samatman 7y agoI'm sure you know what you mean by the difference between Markdown "flavors" (bad, don't need) and Markdown renderers that let you pick and choose different extensions (good, more of that please). But, I don't.
- cnf 7y agoA flavor is a slightly different syntax, a renderer is the software that outputs format x from markdown. So flavor A can only be rendered by renderer A, but vanilla markdown can be rendered by all renderers. Different renderers can produce different output based on the options you give them, though
- samatman 7y agoSure, and Markdeep handles vanilla Markdown just fine. It also offers some extensions, which can't be standard by definition. I don't see a problem with that, and I definitely don't understand the distinction the grandparent was trying to make.