An interesting idea - markdown specification with RGB based support

Hi Community Commonmark.

Feature name

Markdown specification with todo support RGB(red, green, blue)

Feature description

I recently had this idea - adding todo RGB support in Markdown, I don’t know if it’s a good idea and I wanted to know everyone’s opinion.

Idea, Example, Image:

image

Idea, source-code:

[x:r] pop
[x:b] rock
[x:g] blues
[x] metal
[x] jazz
[x] classical
[ ] pop-rock

html

<input type="checkbox" id="checkbox221" checked="true">
<label for="checkbox221" style="color: red;">pop</label>

<input type="checkbox" id="checkbox222" checked="true">
<label for="checkbox222" style="color: blue;">rock</label>

<input type="checkbox" id="checkbox223" checked="true">
<label for="checkbox223" style="color: green;">blues</label>

<input type="checkbox" id="checkbox224" checked="true">
<label for="checkbox224">metal</label>

<input type="checkbox" id="checkbox225" checked="true">
<label for="checkbox225">jazz</label>

<input type="checkbox" id="checkbox226" checked="true">
<label for="checkbox226">classical</label>

<input type="checkbox" id="checkbox227">
<label for="checkbox227">pop rock</label>

Notes/References

  1. x:r is checked with color red.
  2. x:b is checked with color blue.
  3. x:g is checked with color green.
  4. Inspiration RGB(red, green, blue).
  5. none is unchecked.
  6. This is just an example of an idea, , I wanted to know everyone’s opinion here.
  7. If this idea was bad, I apologize for the inconvenience.
  8. dillinger - markdown editor online
  9. symbol ‘:’ means ‘with’

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. [/], [+], [-], [_].

1 Like

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

  1. Keywords: event, note
  2. I don’t know if it’s interesting, but it’s a vision I had today

@Crissov We could create a commonmark-todo? What do you think of the idea?

What do you think of the idea commonmark-todo? @vas

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.

1 Like

@vas So… I know at least these 9 to-do list formats:

  1. All these task formats that i am aware of are markdown based
  2. I was wondering if I could not standardize all these formats as commonmark-todo
  3. I was thinking of creating something like Babelmark-todo

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.

1 Like