1. 11
  1.  

  2. 8

    You all have probably already seen it, but CommonMark is an attempt at a formal spec.

    1. 4

      As far as recent critiques of markdown go, imo this one was more substantive.

      1. 2

        For whatever his writing may lack in eloquence, Eric makes up for it in my eyes at least by being a serious subject expert. He runs Read The Docs, one of the biggest online programming documentation repositories out there.

        1. 1

          Yeah, this one feels more like “why hosting your blog on someone else’s platform sucks” than anything about the shortcomings of Markdown.

        2. 3

          The author should consider hosting his own server and using whatever markdown implementation is comfortable with instead of relying on github.

          1. 2

            Kind of ironic that someone who’s name is synonymous with Erlang would now be seeing the value of strict typing.

            There are efforts to give Markdown a formal spec, which should resolve the problem. It should have happened a long time ago, but better late than never.

            1. 6

              I’m not an Erlang expert, but I believe that it is strictly typed. Just not statically typed. For example, Erlang does have an “official grammar”: http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/2011-November/062387.html Joe seems to want clarity and formalism, which is a prerequisite to interoperability.

            2. 1

              Yeah it might suck, but what are we going to use instead? until someone creates something new, we’re stuck with it.