2 ms·

> The problem with reStructuredText at least is, that there seems to be only one canonical parser, that defines the format. The same is true of Markdown (the c

• zelphirkalt 1y ago
  Oh, I am surprised the original didn't include tables. Guess it has been too long, since I looked at his page. reStructuredText of course has support for tables[1]. I think writing a grammar for reStructuredText is a larger effort of course than writing one for Markdown, which is not to be underestimated. Though extending reStructuredText is way less necessary, because it already includes a concept for custom "directives" (iirc that is what they are called). For example I have once made a custom directive to link to other documents, so that I have a local "wiki" like structure made out of files and folders. In Markdown no specific syntax exists for things to be implemented as extensions. Customization authors need to include special things in their parser instead, or come up with an extensibility concept themselves. I think the point you are trying to make is, that there seems to be something else making the difference in adoption of the formats. Do I interpret your comment correctly? [1]: https://www.sphinx-doc.org/en/master/usage/restructuredtext/basics.html#tables https://www.sphinx-doc.org/en/master/usage/restructuredtext/...