Apparently (at least some) people are claiming that it's the "Standard" that is 'offensive,' and not "Markdown." It just seems like a case-study in splitting ha

Apparently (at least some) people are claiming that it's the "Standard" that is 'offensive,' and not "Markdown." It just seems like a case-study in splitting hairs though. The real issue boils down to: 1. This is a project designed to become the new Markdown spec, thereby wrestling control of "Markdown" from Gruber. 2. This project was developed in-concert with most of the big sites that use Markdown (StackExchange, Reddit, Github), and therefore has enough weight behind it to push it as the defacto standard. 3. The name "Standard Markdown" is generic enough to possibly cause brand-confusion whereas "MultiMarkdown" and "Github Flavored Markdown" come off as offshoots of The Original Markdown(tm). Personally, I think that Gruber's mostly upset that this has the potential to become the defacto Markdown while still using Markdown in the name. If (e.g.) MultiMarkdown was in a similar position, he would probably be pitching the same fit. [ I really don't like the name "Standard Markdown" in general. I prefer a suggestion I saw elsewhere, "Common Markdown." ]