First, this message is not in any degree a criticism. I appreciate (and use!) the tools by John Macfarlane, but I wonder whether those tools will conform to the Commonmark spec. I ask this because Pandoc, to my understanding, is the most evolved of them (it has got a lot of extensions and it’s been actively developed), and it supports several flavours of Markdown. I’m also asking this because mostly in the field of sublists and raw html there are several differences among them.
Finally, apologies if this doesn’t belong here.
jgm has said on pandoc-discuss:
One thing I’m not clear on is what this means for Pandoc.
Good question. One thing that is clear is that the maintainer of pandoc likes the spec.
First step would be creating a reader for standard markdown. (Cheapskate is fairly close, already.) I don’t think a writer is necessary, as I suspect pandoc’s current markdown writer (with some extensions) will output valid stmd.
Second step, supporting pandoc extensions inside standard markdown.
Third step, eventually, making this the default ‘markdown’ for pandoc.
It’s all going to be quite a lot of work, so don’t expect anything in the near term!
Thanks for your reply. I was also talking about the divergences that exist between, for example, Pandoc, Lunamark and Cheapskate regarding sublists. Will they be updated to reflect this?
Pretty sure they already have, haven’t they?
Cheapskate and lunamark I’m no longer really supporting – their parsers have some problems, and cmark is far better.
Pandoc’s markdown parser is not CommonMark conformant. Eventually I’d like to make it so, but it’s not a simple task.
For now, pandoc has commonmark readers and writers that are 100% conformant – indeed, they use libcmark behind the scenes. Just use
pandoc --from commonmark or
pandoc --to commonmark. Of course with these you lose all the nice extensions that’s pandoc’s own markdown flavor has. But you can convert between commonmark and any of the formats pandoc supports.