4 ms·

I think it's worth noting that TeX was standardized and frozen by Knuth (at version 3.14159...). I recall that Knuth wrote that it was important to have a docu

by todd8 12y ago

I think it's worth noting that TeX was standardized and frozen by Knuth (at version 3.14159...). I recall that Knuth wrote that it was important to have a documentation format that didn't drift over time so that in the future TeX would properly process documents written many years before. Knuth also protected the name TeX. There have been a number of important packages that run on top of TeX, for example LaTeX and ConText and even enhanced implementations of TeX itself, like LuaTeX, pdftex, and xetex; however, only Knuth's TeX can be called "TeX". It seems that this has worked out for TeX, something similar could be done for Markdown.

espadrine 12y ago
"TeX" is literally a substring of "LaTeX", just like "Markdown" is a substring of "Standard Markdown". Further, I don't really want to write TeX. I want to write LaTeX, and only care about a PDF output, which isn't what the original TeX program specializes in at all. Standard Markdown is a breath of fresh air that ensures the continued success of Markdown, just like LaTeX did for TeX. Of course, only a few websites have adopted it for now, but I would not be flabbergasted if I started seeing more websites adopt it. TeX is dead. So is Markdown. We have a new king.
x0x0 12y ago
tex, unlike gruber's markdown, is both maintained and has a turing complete language inside it. I don't think gruber's markdown is a good core for anything. Rather, people really like the idea, and have been filling in missing features along the way.
- pyre 12y ago
  It's even less about missing features than about bringing some sanity to the ambiguities in the few features that Markdown has. Markdown doesn't even do a good job of spec'ing the few features that it does have.
doe88 12y ago
Exactly, I don't understand people making the argument that a project is abandonned because it doesn't evolve, I think that Gruber thinks it's a feature. I also understand why another group of people would want to make evolve and extend this work I think it's fair. But what I don't get is this offensive naming Standard Markdown it is somewhat made to make look Markdown deprecated, old, instead of simply communicating on the idea that it is a different project originally based on Markdown but oriented in a different direction. Worst of all I think this naming was choosen on purpose.
- pyre 12y ago
  > that a project is abandonned because it doesn't evolve While I wouldn't say that a project is abandoned, I would say that a project is broken if it's a file format that has many ambiguities in the spec, and bug reports to the author/maintainer are all marked as WONTFIX. I really wouldn't describe that situation as "doesn't evolve" either.
  - doe88 12y ago
    Yes, but for instance sometimes in my open source projects I disagree with the philosophy or with the purpose of a patch and I mark it WONTFIX, I feel bad because I don't want to offense people that take the time to contribute, but above all I don't want to mess-up with my project so I don't commit the patch. At the end of the day I think you're the creator of the project, you have a vision, you are the editor and you must not feel bad about it. And after all, if people disagree, they fork it and make it their own project with their own name. But calling it abandonned or bad stewardship is simply wrong.
    - pyre 12y ago
      When you make something, and publish it with the intent that it is used by others, then you can't turn around and decide that any/all criticism is unfair. Take the Linux kernel for example. If Linus Torvalds decides to abandon all support for architectures other than MIPS in the Linux kernel, would you not consider it fair game to criticize his stewardship of the Linux kernel? Or is all criticism silenced by, "well, it's my project so I can do whatever I want to do?" This is also a little more ambiguous because Markdown is a loose file format spec rather than a project with "actual" code, so no one is really "submitting patches."
duaneb 12y ago
> Knuth's TeX can be called "TeX". Not true, actually, I believe he's made allowances for other implementations to be called that IFF they implement it correctly. I still believe it's controlled by him, but it's not a completely frozen name.
tbatchelli 12y ago
I don't think Knuth would be happy with "Standard TeX". In my mind, the problematic part is of "Standard Markdown" is "Standard", not the composition of "X Markdown". "Standard Markdown" makes it the real Markdown for most people, and that is the problem, that it feels like you're trying to steal the work from the original author, not build on it.
- aaronem 12y ago
  > I don't think Knuth would be happy with "Standard TeX". Perhaps that's because Dr. Knuth actually standardized TeX, unlike what Gruber did with Markdown.

by todd8 12y ago

espadrine 12y ago

"TeX" is literally a substring of "LaTeX", just like "Markdown" is a substring of "Standard Markdown". Further, I don't really want to write TeX. I want to write LaTeX, and only care about a PDF output, which isn't what the original TeX program specializes in at all. Standard Markdown is a breath of fresh air that ensures the continued success of Markdown, just like LaTeX did for TeX. Of course, only a few websites have adopted it for now, but I would not be flabbergasted if I started seeing more websites adopt it. TeX is dead. So is Markdown. We have a new king.

x0x0 12y ago

tex, unlike gruber's markdown, is both maintained and has a turing complete language inside it. I don't think gruber's markdown is a good core for anything. Rather, people really like the idea, and have been filling in missing features along the way.

pyre 12y ago
It's even less about missing features than about bringing some sanity to the ambiguities in the few features that Markdown has. Markdown doesn't even do a good job of spec'ing the few features that it does have.

doe88 12y ago

Exactly, I don't understand people making the argument that a project is abandonned because it doesn't evolve, I think that Gruber thinks it's a feature. I also understand why another group of people would want to make evolve and extend this work I think it's fair. But what I don't get is this offensive naming Standard Markdown it is somewhat made to make look Markdown deprecated, old, instead of simply communicating on the idea that it is a different project originally based on Markdown but oriented in a different direction. Worst of all I think this naming was choosen on purpose.

pyre 12y ago
> that a project is abandonned because it doesn't evolve While I wouldn't say that a project is abandoned, I would say that a project is broken if it's a file format that has many ambiguities in the spec, and bug reports to the author/maintainer are all marked as WONTFIX. I really wouldn't describe that situation as "doesn't evolve" either.
- doe88 12y ago
  Yes, but for instance sometimes in my open source projects I disagree with the philosophy or with the purpose of a patch and I mark it WONTFIX, I feel bad because I don't want to offense people that take the time to contribute, but above all I don't want to mess-up with my project so I don't commit the patch. At the end of the day I think you're the creator of the project, you have a vision, you are the editor and you must not feel bad about it. And after all, if people disagree, they fork it and make it their own project with their own name. But calling it abandonned or bad stewardship is simply wrong.
  - pyre 12y ago
    When you make something, and publish it with the intent that it is used by others, then you can't turn around and decide that any/all criticism is unfair. Take the Linux kernel for example. If Linus Torvalds decides to abandon all support for architectures other than MIPS in the Linux kernel, would you not consider it fair game to criticize his stewardship of the Linux kernel? Or is all criticism silenced by, "well, it's my project so I can do whatever I want to do?" This is also a little more ambiguous because Markdown is a loose file format spec rather than a project with "actual" code, so no one is really "submitting patches."

duaneb 12y ago

> Knuth's TeX can be called "TeX". Not true, actually, I believe he's made allowances for other implementations to be called that IFF they implement it correctly. I still believe it's controlled by him, but it's not a completely frozen name.

tbatchelli 12y ago

I don't think Knuth would be happy with "Standard TeX". In my mind, the problematic part is of "Standard Markdown" is "Standard", not the composition of "X Markdown". "Standard Markdown" makes it the real Markdown for most people, and that is the problem, that it feels like you're trying to steal the work from the original author, not build on it.

aaronem 12y ago
> I don't think Knuth would be happy with "Standard TeX". Perhaps that's because Dr. Knuth actually standardized TeX, unlike what Gruber did with Markdown.