4 ms·
Since when does something have to have a standard syntax to be a language? I mean, if you said "it's not a programming language" because it's not really executa
by stormbrew 12y ago
Since when does something have to have a standard syntax to be a language? I mean, if you said "it's not a programming language" because it's not really executable in even a limited sense, I'd get that, but to say it's not a language -- a means of communicating information -- is just absurd. There's no standard BASIC, and there are almost certainly hundreds if not thousands of variants of it, but no one would say it's not a language because of that.
- BerislavLopac 12y agoNo, I meant a "markup language". And you're right -- Markdown is not "a means of communicating information"; it's a script that converts one form of information to another.
- Retra 12y agoMarkdown isn't a means of communicating information?
- BerislavLopac 12y agoOnly partially. Technically, it is simply a conversion mechanism that converts one form of formatted text (the "Markdown" syntax) to another (HTML). Now, since the original format has never been formally specified, instead only being loosely defined by years of practice in email and Usenet messages, Gruber had to specify some constraints for his script to follow, but this is far from a standard. If we assume there is a standard, it's not called "Markdown", as Gruber heavily opposes that. On the other hand I'll agree that, if we extend the meaning of the term "Markdown" to cover a stantard like CommonMark, in that case yes, Markdown is a means of communicating relatively minor elements of information -- such as emphasis or lists -- as any other markup language.