5 ms·

This is a good call. I know it's been suggested multiple times over the years; I wonder what the rationale was for rejecting the format, or at least having the

This is a good call. I know it's been suggested multiple times over the years; I wonder what the rationale was for rejecting the format, or at least having the option to render a file when it's loaded. (Maybe a "display as HTML" button or the like would be required before it would be rendered.)

chrismorgan 8mo ago
“Markdown” is a family of writing formats. There is no one “Markdown”. It’s completely unsuitable for direct inclusion in the web platform. Related reading: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7763.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7763.html text/markdown registration.
- Ringz 8mo ago
  The overlap between these Markdown formats is actually larger than with many other formats. Possibly even larger than HTML’s overlap back when MS Explorer was the dominant browser.
  - chrismorgan 8mo ago
    > Possibly even larger than HTML’s overlap back when MS Explorer was the dominant browser. No way. You were never left in doubt about whether a normal HTML tag would work, or whether tables were available or would become a jumbled illegible mess, or whether a line break in the source would become a space or a hard break. And that’s just the first three things that occur to me.
- yencabulator 8mo ago
  You have to be willingly ignoring CommonMark, these days. I understand it doesn't have all the extensions one might hope, but to not parse the basics like the examples in the spec say is just doing everyone a disservice.