Whether you’re really passionate about RPC, MQTT, Matrix or wayland, tell us more about the protocols or open standards you have strong opinions on!

  • xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    Markdown is terrible as a standard because every parser works differently and when you try to standardize it (CommonMark, etc.), you find out that there are a bajillion edge cases, leading to an extremely bloated specification.

    • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Agreed in principle, but in practice, I find it’s rarely a problem.

      While editing, we pick an export tool for all editors and stick to it.

      Once the document is stable, we export it to HTML or PDF and it’ll be stable forever.

      • TechNom (nobody)@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        8 months ago

        Commonmark leaves some stuff like tables unspecified. That creates the need for another layer like GFM or mistletoe. Standardization is not a strong point for markdown.

        • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          8 months ago

          I believe commonmark tries to specify a minimum baseline spec, and doesn’t try to to expand beyond that. It can be frustrating bc we’d like to see tables, superscripts, spoilers, and other things standardized, but I can see why they’d want to keep things minimal.

          • TechNom (nobody)@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            8 months ago

            Asciidoc is a good example of why everything should be standardized. While markdown has multiple implementations, any document is tied to just one implementation. Asciidoc has just one implementation. But when the standard is ready, you should be able to switch implementations seamlessly.

      • xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Have you read the CommonMark specification? It’s very complex for a language that’s supposed to be lightweight.

        • frezik
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          What’s the alternative? We either have everything specified well, or we’ll have a million slightly incompatible implementations. I’ll take the big specification. At least it’s not HTML5.

          • xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            An alternative would be a language with a simpler syntax. Something like XML, but less verbose.

            • frezik
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              And then we’ll be back to a hundred slightly incompatible versions. You need detailed specifications to avoid that. Why not stick to markdown?