3 ms·
> I think common mark is really the worst form of markdown How so? > And tables are optional? That does not sound great for many Text documents to be honest.
by Cyberdog 5y ago
> I think common mark is really the worst form of markdown
How so?
> And tables are optional? That does not sound great for many Text documents to be honest. I would rather argue, forcing browsers to not only implement tables but sortable and filterable tables would give such a standard an immediate leg up over the existing web and browsers and is absolutely something people working with text documents would gain benefit from.
There are two issues with tables: One, they are not in the CommonMark spec and as such many parsers will not support them out-of-the-box, and two, the syntax as implemented in GitHub-flavored Markdown (which is what is commonly understood as a "Markdown table") is incredibly complex compared to any other standard or not-standard-but-common Markdown feature. Thus, I would not expect very resource-limited systems to be able to support them.
That said, I'd expect that any KyuWeb browsers that reach widespread use on modern every-day systems would support tables, so unless you're interested in browsing KyuWeb on old IBM PC systems or the like, the issue is largely moot.
- IgorPartola 5y agoI think you answered your own questions as to why common mark is bad :)
- Cyberdog 5y agoDid I? How so? Please be specific. Was it that it doesn't support tables?
- davidjytang 5y agoOnly because the spec lacks table?