Let me summarize “problem”.
- It’s not specific to
mermaid
, it’s about extending fenced-like markup for blocks, to land new renderers. - Currently, spec says fenced blocks are for code only. But IMO this approach has bigger potential than initially expected.
- I would not use alternate guards (
:::
and so on). IMO “```” could be preferable (subject to discuss).
- I would not use alternate guards (
- There are two main directions, where to extend fenced blocks:
a) Self-sufficient isolated content with alternate renderers (diagrams, math and so on)
b) Blocks with nested markdown content (quotes, asides, notes…) - It’s not mandatory, but would be nice to have recommendation about fenced params format.
- IMO, the most influencing parties for CM promotion are Discourse & Gihtub.
- From my past experience, guys from Discource use
markdown-it
, and are very responsive. No problems at this side. - Communication with Github is not clear. They publish own spec (CM + addons), but i don’t know contact, who can say explicit their plans and intents about future [syntax] extensions. It would be nice if we could move forward in sync.
- From my past experience, guys from Discource use
- IMO, extending fenced blocks for isolated content (see [3. a]) is not difficult and does not require too much time to collect & balance opinions. But for “solid” result, feedback from Github is mandatory (see [5]). I’d like to know exactly their opinion, if possible, before start. Of cause, we could do everything with Discource only, but that’s not good for CM spec in long term. I understand importance of unified spec, and would like to avoid any possibilities of future splits.