Simpler is better for everyone. Common Mark should stand apart with no (or minimal) reliance on other other languages. IMO, backward compatibility is a goal not an absolute. Where backward compatibility is possible go for it but do not be bound by it. Very probable not all variants of Markdown can be built into Common Mark. Common Mark needs to “exceed” the other variants so they go away. Simplicity and unambiguous ways of writing will eventually prevail. Getting all to use Common Mark not likely.
-
I agree with @alehed that Common Mark should provide the ability to create the “normal” features of writing documents (tables; footnotes and so on).
-
Eliminate multiple ways of performing the same task. For example, no short reference links. There are probable others.
-
Emphasis: not sure how to solve bold and strong. Bold = " * “. Strong +” ** ". I agree with one character to identify letter format.
-
A truly radical proposal: use words, ie this becomes an attribute so there is no ambiguity (strong is strong; bold is bold). For clarity in human readability each attribute stands alone; cannot put multiple attributes in the same “holder”.
-
For attributes: {=…} @adiantwoods.
-
With a unambiguous statement of attributes HTML not needed. Not all know HTML or care to learn HTML.
-
A list should only be a list (no fancy complications).
-
All code that needs to “pass through” inside a code block.
Always open to comments and suggestions.