Tomas Doran bobtfish at
Fri Feb 29 06:35:49 EST 2008

On 28 Feb 2008, at 23:04, Yuri Takhteyev wrote:

>> I'd like to get to a point where I'm a little more happy with the

>> code, and then I'll start promoting this as a 'true' fork, or, if I

>> can get John to agree and approve - I'd like to become the

>> 'official'

>> maintained version which is linked from daringfireball.


> I am sure will make life much simpler for those using

> Markdown with Perl. As a maintainer of a markdown module in a

> different language, however, I am not as excited about the idea of a

> new "official" implementation.

Can we change the word "official" for the word "reference", which is
much more in line with what I actually meant.

> In fact, I think a new official

> implementation is the last thing we need, since in the absence of a

> clear spec, a new official implementation would be a source of great

> confusion, especially if the new implementation suddenly adds a large

> number of undocumented features.


1) I'm not adding features to the Text::Markdown language.
2) I do however support a number of options (most of the things that
were hard coded globals in can now be configured). These
*are all documented*, and have unit tests.

> Would this now make all of "Markdown

> Extra" official? (And give us two under-defined specs instead of

> one.) Or just those parts of Markdown Extra that

> implements?

The latter, given that it doesn't implement *any* of them :)

> And if keeps evolving (which it should), does

> this mean that we would now be on the hook for diffing

> code daily to find out what new features has become official?

Nope, I think that a 'formal' channel for discussing things like this
is needed. That'd probably be this list. The thing that we're missing
is a 'formal' / 'official' way to get a conclusion from these
discussions reached and documented.

> Note

> that I am not against the new features in Markdown Extra. I added

> some of them in and I would add more or even all if we

> could agree to make them official. But I want to implement them

> against a spec, not against a perl module. I also think some of those

> features should be discussed first.

Totally agree. However, the fact that *is* the reference
implementation (despite it's known bugs), is very sad.

I'd really like a spec (or set of specs, for different dialects) that
we could sanely write code against, however I strongly feel that the
reference implementation should stick like glue to the original
Markdown feature set, and only fix bugs and inconsistencies.

> Perhaps there is a need for a better _perl_ implementation (or a few,

> competition is fun), but as far as "official" goes, we need a

> comprehensive and up-to-date spec and a test suite against which all

> implementations could be measured.

Here here, I *strongly* agree with this. One of the main things I've
been trying to do is get a really good test suite together which can
be used as a yardstick, and I'll happily jump on the bandwagon and
contribute (and code to) any community effort for a better spec. :)


More information about the Markdown-Discuss mailing list