maybe a year ago, but not today

[Bowerbird at aol.com]

john said:

>    No, it doesn't provide a converter for multimarkdown,

>    though someone on the pandoc-discuss list 

>    mentioned that he was working on one.


well, maybe that was what confused me, but that "someone"
could not have been "the smartest person in light-markup",
because that's _you_, john, so i was mistaken when i thought
you'd given multimarkdown the implicit distinction of being
the only markdown variant honored with a pandoc converter.

though now that i've thought about it, you told me you would
include a converter for z.m.l., providing that i wrote the thing,
so i guess there is no implied macfarlane validation anyway...

no matter how you swing it, pandoc is a phenomenal machine.

***

david said:

>    That's your mistake. Pandoc provides converters for 

>    (one interpretation of) the "core" markdown syntax, 

>    and for its own extended markdown syntax, which differs 

>    from MultiMarkdown's extended markdown syntax 

>    in significant ways.


yes, john informed me of that.        :+)

but thanks anyway; when i get my facts wrong,
i actively welcome when a correction is made,
and prefer duplicate corrections to none at all.

doesn't make much difference, though, because i'll just
substitute the marsedit choice of multimarkdown for the
"missing" macfarlane endorsement.   the important thing,
anyway, is that fletcher changed to a better parsing model,
which gave clear sailing over regular-expression systems...

***

john said:

>    Pandoc has binary installers for Windows and OSX (intel): 


that must be kinda new.   and it is a welcome development!
(my eyes rolled when it took like 3 hours to install haskell.)

-bowerbird
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/markdown-discuss/attachments/20111020/8c8c929d/attachment-0001.html>