a case for native bounding asterisk support

[Christian Perry]

One thing I'll add, if that's alright, when it comes to transitioning
standards.

It wouldn't have to break anything to update MD syntax: simply present it
as a new version, and note that certain conventions from old version are
being deprecated. Put it on LTS and give the industry 15 years to adapt
(I'm serious about this).

Companies who want v1.1, with native bounding asterisk support, can
transition sooner if they want.





On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 7:07 PM Christian Perry <christian at christianperry.dev>
wrote:

> Well what *else* could it mean, whether it's true in one's groups or not?
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 7:05 PM Max Harmony <maxh at maxh.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > On 03 Jun 2020, at 21.55, Christian Perry <christian at christianperry.dev>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > And when we're talking about UGC in particular, the other uses of
>> bounding asterisks are much, much, much more common than the urge to
>> emphasize -- yet they depend upon the asterisks being displayed as-is.
>>
>> While that may be true *within your groups*, I don't think it's accurate
>> *universally*.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Markdown-Discuss mailing list
>> Markdown-Discuss at six.pairlist.net
>> https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist6.pair.net/pipermail/markdown-discuss/attachments/20200603/88699595/attachment.html>