4 ms·

That's an argument in favor of them making a spec, not an argument in favor of them using the name "Standard Markdown." They could have called it any number of

by ebbv 12y ago

That's an argument in favor of them making a spec, not an argument in favor of them using the name "Standard Markdown." They could have called it any number of other things that don't make the same claims that "Standard Markdown" does. Off the top of my head; Common Markdown, Clean Markdown, or better yet don't actually use the Markdown name, simply imply it such as Forkdown or Sporkdown.

mendort 12y ago
Maybe they can call it "Standardized Markdown" which would be both more descriptive and accurate.
- ebbv 12y ago
  That doesn't really address the main objection to the name "Standard Markdown" unless you already know what the problem with the name is (and thus the implications of the slight difference.) It would be best if the team would just go another route entirely. To be honest, I think this industry wide devotion to Markdown is hilarious, since to me it's a pretty garbage way of solving an easily solved problem. The main/only thing in its favor is its ubiquity.
  - Tyrannosaurs 12y ago
    Standard implies "normal" or "default" as well as "standardised". Whatever you may think of Markdown (that is markdown as created by Gruber), it surely isn't unreasonable to suggest that if any version can make that sort of claim, it should be the original.
  - jjoelson 12y ago
    What percentage of all Markdown written is on GitHub, Reddit, or Stack Exchange? What percentage of rendered Markdown served to users is from those sites? Tough to estimate, but I would say it's certainly a majority. Surely any flavor of Markdown agreed upon by those sites can make a pretty strong case to be considered "standard." Out of curiosity, what do you think is the better "easy" solution to the problem Markdown is trying to solve?
tripzilch 12y ago
How would "Common Markdown" be any better than "Standard Markdown"? Doesn't it sort of imply the same thing? (btw I'm in the camp that thinks "Standard Markdown" is just fine, though I do hope they get the formal specs nailed down a bit more solidly on the ambiguities discussed upthreads, preferably with some kind of formal grammar)

by ebbv 12y ago

mendort 12y ago

Maybe they can call it "Standardized Markdown" which would be both more descriptive and accurate.

ebbv 12y ago
That doesn't really address the main objection to the name "Standard Markdown" unless you already know what the problem with the name is (and thus the implications of the slight difference.) It would be best if the team would just go another route entirely. To be honest, I think this industry wide devotion to Markdown is hilarious, since to me it's a pretty garbage way of solving an easily solved problem. The main/only thing in its favor is its ubiquity.
- Tyrannosaurs 12y ago
  Standard implies "normal" or "default" as well as "standardised". Whatever you may think of Markdown (that is markdown as created by Gruber), it surely isn't unreasonable to suggest that if any version can make that sort of claim, it should be the original.
- jjoelson 12y ago
  What percentage of all Markdown written is on GitHub, Reddit, or Stack Exchange? What percentage of rendered Markdown served to users is from those sites? Tough to estimate, but I would say it's certainly a majority. Surely any flavor of Markdown agreed upon by those sites can make a pretty strong case to be considered "standard." Out of curiosity, what do you think is the better "easy" solution to the problem Markdown is trying to solve?

tripzilch 12y ago

How would "Common Markdown" be any better than "Standard Markdown"? Doesn't it sort of imply the same thing? (btw I'm in the camp that thinks "Standard Markdown" is just fine, though I do hope they get the formal specs nailed down a bit more solidly on the ambiguities discussed upthreads, preferably with some kind of formal grammar)