Joseph Lorenzo Hall joehall at
Sat Mar 15 22:25:46 EDT 2008

good stuff... gruber's an asshole, as far as I can tell. best, Joe

On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 5:27 PM, Tomas Doran <bobtfish at> wrote:


> On 15 Mar 2008, at 02:55, John Gruber wrote:


> > On Feb 28, 2008, at 12:34 PM, Tomas Doran wrote:

> >

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

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

> >> canonical distribution.

> >

> > I despise what you've done with Text::Markdown, which is to more or

> > less make it an alias for MultiMarkdown, almost every part of which

> > I disagree with in terms of syntax additions.

> >


> Wow, that's pretty strong language. I'm glad I'm provoking strong

> opinions, and it's nice to see you actively contributing to

> Markdown's direction ;)


> Personally, I don't actually like (or use) the MultiMarkdown

> extensions. As noted several times on list (

> pipermail/markdown-discuss/2008-March/001100.html and others), I *do

> not* consider what I've done to in any way be a good solution

> technically / internally in it's current form, and as such

> is still a better 'reference' implementation.


> However I find it somewhat ironic that you can criticise an active

> effort to actually move Markdown forwards (who's current flaws have

> been publicly acknowledged), when it passes more of your test suite

> than your effort does, and when you haven't even been bothered to

> update your own website about the project since 2004, despite having

> updated the code which can be found on your site (if you dig) much

> more recently than this.


> Don't get me wrong - the internals of the code I'm publishing are

> *shockingly nasty*, and I *am currently* refactoring so that

> Text::Markdown is a standalone implementation (with just the original

> Markdown feature set), that Text::MultiMarkdown builds upon. I will

> also shortly be providing a that works for command line

> usage and also does the MT and bloxom plugin magic.


> At that point my implementation will be less buggy (by your test

> suite), faster and more compatible with recent perl versions than any

> version of the 'original' I also plan to (eventually)

> produce a Text::MarkdownExtra which adds those extensions, but I plan

> to do it from the same codebase, in some way that is less grotty than

> having a load (more) 'turn feature X off' switches.


> The code I have at the moment, is, however a step along the road, and

> was the most pragmatic thing to do in the short term to un-fuck and

> update both modules.


> I despise copy-pasted code, and forks for no (real) reason - seeing

> *another two* dead copies of the same code on CPAN made me sad, and

> so I've done *something* to take the situation forwards. Maybe if

> you'd put the effort into maintaining a community and taking

> forwards at any time within the last 4 years, you

> wouldn't be in a situation where people have taken 'your baby' and

> perverted it to a point that you despise. If starting with

> and going forwards with that *had been an option*, then

> that would have been my preferred route - but I didn't see any value

> in producing what would have been a **fifth** perl Markdown

> implementation.


> Cheers

> Tom


> (

> splitcode_unshell_Text-Markdown/lib/Text/ is where I am

> now, more stuff needs fixing / pulling apart to be able to do

> Text::MultiMarkdown without so much c&p code)



> _______________________________________________

> Markdown-Discuss mailing list

> Markdown-Discuss at



Joseph Lorenzo Hall
UC Berkeley School of Information

More information about the Markdown-Discuss mailing list