Agreeing on "Historical Markdown"

Sean Leonard dev+ietf at
Fri Jul 11 06:08:14 EDT 2014

On 7/11/2014 3:04 AM, Michel Fortin wrote:
> Le 11-juil.-2014 à 4:54, Sean Leonard <dev+ietf at> a écrit :
>> Since we cannot reach consensus on what ought to be "Standard Markdown" today, can the community reach consensus on "Historical Markdown"--of which I propose three working definitions?
>> * Classic Markdown: The Markdown syntax or implementation, as implemented by John Gruber, in 1.0.1, with all ambiguities, bugs, frustrations, and contradictions. [In cases that the syntax and the tool contradict, we come up with a way to resolve the contradictions.]
>> * Original Markdown: The Markdown syntax or implementation, as implemented by John Gruber, in 1.0.2b7, with as many of the ambiguities, bugs, frustrations, and contradictions fixed as he actually fixed (or failed to fix) them. Aka "Markdown Web Dingus".
>> * Idealized Markdown (aka Historical Standard Markdown): The Markdown that everyone can agree is the way Markdown "should have been" back when there was One True Markdown. Basically this is Original Markdown with its faults duly recognized and corrected...many of these faults having been corrected in practice in divergent implementations (Markdown Extra etc.) but never officially recognized in Original Markdown.
>> I cannot say which of these three is better...but by recognizing these three as common points, we can then start to compare on the same page.
> You might also call the first two "Markdown 1.0.1" and "Markdown 1.0.2b7" for simplicity's sake. As for the idealized version, that's what I call "Markdown" personally, or "plain Markdown" when I need to disambiguate.

Ok; however, I understand that there are some differences between the 
syntax <> and the 
1.0.1 implementation. Maybe also the 1.0.2b[x] implementation(s). Right?


More information about the Markdown-Discuss mailing list