It is a bad idea indeed, not least due to English language abbreviations which are not something MD uses.
However, I see the point in having more states for checkboxes, but this could be done with different language neutral symbols, e.g. [/], [+], [-], [_].
This is good: [/], [+], [-], [_]. - great idea. So… there is an unknown markdown dialect called .bullet
file .bullet
- [ ] Todo
- [x] Finished todo
- [>] Migrated from daily log to new monthly log
- [<] Migrated to appropriate month in future log
- [~] Not worth doing
- note
* event
- [[ ]] Important todo
My idea would be to specify markdown with bullet and with your idea:
example
- [ ] Todo
- [x] Finished todo
- [>] Migrated from daily log to new monthly log
- [<] Migrated to appropriate month in future log
- [~] Not worth doing
- note
* event
- [[ ]] Important todo
- [/]
- [+]
- [-]
- [_]
Notes
Keywords: event, note
I don’t know if it’s interesting, but it’s a vision I had today
There might be some demand for a TODO list with more states. I don’t know.
To be blunt, it’s not going to become part of the CommonMark spec, as there are very many high demand extensions that have been waiting for years to be added. They haven’t been added because the CommonMark spec has been focused only on solidifying a specification for “core” or “basic” Markdown, i.e. the original Markdown defined by Gruber.
But this solid core is a good base upon which to add extensions. That’s what Pandoc, GitHub and many others do.
If you want to pursue your idea, you can implement it as an extension to one of the CommonMark implementations that supports extensions, e.g. Markdown-it.
It’s certainly a good idea to document commonalities, (compatible) extensions and (incompatible) differences. You can then specify a CM extension from that, which should include test cases even for corner cases.