[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Styling

Goffi goffi at goffi.org
Mon Nov 6 20:39:32 UTC 2017


Le lundi 6 novembre 2017, 21:07:02 CET Peter Saint-Andre a écrit :
> On 11/6/17 1:02 PM, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote:
> > Mon, 06 Nov 2017 13:31:32 -0600
> > 
> > Sam Whited <sam at samwhited.com> wrote:
> >> This spec does not use Markdown, nor is it compatible with markdown,
> >> so if people use a Markdown library they won't get the same formatting
> >> described in this spec.
> > 
> > But they can easily fork existing md-to-js engines like [1] and patch
> > it. So we still need to rely on reliability of those engines.
> 
> Why not just use Markdown (or a subset thereof)?
> 
> Peter


Because it is not a publishing syntax (as the initial author says clearly on 
the page everybody usually link).

https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2017-October/033641.html

Copy of points from previous threads:

Here is the list of points I have against Markdown, some of them also apply to 
other textish syntaxes, and 6) is particularly bad (you'll see people putting 
unfiltered markdown with <script>[bad things]</script> inside):

1) as its name state it's a writting syntax and not a publishing one. There is 
not such thing as invalid Markdown (every text is valid Markdown), but the 
result will differ according to rendering library used.
Even original author says that it's not a publishing format ("HTML is a 
publishing format; Markdown is a writing format." cf. https://
daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax)

2) it's not specified and it's unlikely that it will be (and yes I know about 
common Markdown and RFCs about the MIME type and the guidance on Mardown).

3) there are dozen of flavours, more or less (in)compatibles

4) as stated by Jonas, it's really hard to extend without side results (should 
I interpret ~bla bla~ as strikethrough? Yes my librarie is doing it! Oh wait 
no, it's not an official syntax, there is not strikethrough in Markdown… 
https://daringfireball.net/linked/2015/11/05/markdown-strikethrough-slack ).

5) it's limited (no color, no strikethourgh in classic syntax)

6) official syntax allow embedding HTML, so libraries may or may not interpret 
<script> as HTML, ruining the whole purpose of "changing syntax because it's 
better for security".

7) my_long_variable will emphasis "long" in some implementation, not in others 
(example taken from Wikipedia)


Goffi


More information about the Standards mailing list