Hi all – Do you think it would be helpful to define a strict, unambiguous subset of Markdown/CommonMark? What I mean is that Markdown by default allows for several different ways to do lots of things, and the CommonMark spec allows for all sorts of extreme artifacts and syntax.
For example, a strict subset would specify one way to do emphasis (e.g. asterisks only), one way to do headings (e.g. octothorpes, called ATX I think), one way to do unordered lists (e.g. hyphens), and so forth. It could also strictly limit the length of delimiter runs and lock down other syntactic artifacts.
I wonder if having a much simpler strict subset would help clarify the full CommonMark spec, or make it easier to write. Certainly writing the spec for the strict subset would be easier than the CommonMark spec. And writing parsers would be easier.
Is there some other way such a project or subproject would help CommonMark? I don’t have any strong opinions here. It’s fine if it’s orthogonal and needs to be its own project.
This might seem similar to a Markdown linter that forces one way of doing each thing, but a linter isn’t a spec, and probably wouldn’t spawn lean standalone parsers.
Those of you who have written parsers – how much ease-of-parsing benefits do you think could be realized?
(A good name would be Stark, abbreviating STrict mARKdown, and a nod to the true King in the North. )