david parsons orc at
Fri Feb 29 11:04:31 EST 2008

In article <931A108A-0D2B-4B82-A5CA-81DE3C414494 at>,
Tomas Doran <markdown-discuss at> wrote:


>On 29 Feb 2008, at 01:00, david parsons wrote:


>> In article <9F6C6C2C-F48E-4BA2-BB5B-4F790CDE65B9 at>,

>> Tomas Doran <markdown-discuss at> wrote:


>>> On 27 Feb 2008, at 23:36, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:

>>>> Has anyone thought of forking and maintaining (hopefully

>>>> with Gruber's blessing) to fix some of the known bugs?


>>> I'm actively maintaining the CPAN modules Text::Markdown, and

>>> Text::MultiMarkdown, and longer term, I'd like these to become the

>>> canonical distribution.


>> Personally, I don't think that would be a very good idea. Not

>> because there's anything wrong with your implementation, but

>> because the current sticks fairly close to the syntax

>> document while your modules extend it in a variety of ways.


>Text::Markdown *does not* extend the original Markdown syntax *in any


Yes. you said "and Text::MultiMarkdown" which provoked
my comments. I'm sorry -- I misunderstood you.

>I'd very much like there to be a community effort to come to a (more

>exact) spec (and test cases) for the 'official' Markdown language,

>which everyone can then implement to, but this effort would *have* to

>consider that people do want to extend Markdown in various different



What I'd love, too, is to see is to have the spec nailed down and
blessed by John Gruber, at the very least so people don't have to
trawl through markdown.discuss and 30 or so individual
implementations to figure what the state of the art is. It's
somewhat less ego-ridden than replacing the reference spec.

-david "add snarky comment about ANSI markdown here" parsons

More information about the Markdown-Discuss mailing list