Fossil Forum

Proposal: add more markdown emphasis chars
Login

Proposal: add more markdown emphasis chars

Proposal: add more markdown emphasis chars

(1.3) By juef on 2024-04-25 19:52:58 edited from 1.2 [link] [source]

https://fossil-scm.org/home/vdiff?from=trunk&to=markdown-extra-emph-chars

Text styling:

subscript: ~text~, e.g. H~2~O
supscript: ^text^, e.g. E=mc^2^
++inserted text++
--deleted text--
==mark==
~~strikethrough~~

(2) By Richard Hipp (drh) on 2024-04-03 18:50:49 in reply to 1.0 [link] [source]

Questions:

  1. Are the proposed enhancements in the CommonMark Spec?

  2. Are the proposed enhancements supported by other popular Markdown rendering engines, such as on GitHub?

(3.9) By juef on 2024-04-04 11:37:27 edited from 3.8 in reply to 2 [link] [source]

All of of them I think not present in CommonMark.

  1. strikethrough, via double ~: github, gitlab, forgejo (which uses goldmark), discount, pandoc, VS Code (which uses markdown-it library), marktext
  2. sub-, supscripts, via single ~ and ^: github, gitlab, forgejo - no; lowdown, discount, pandoc, VS Code; asciidoc
  3. highlighted text, via ==: again github, gitlab, forgejo - no; VS Code; in asciidoc via single #, in pandoc via [Mark]{.mark}
  4. inserted, deleted text via -- and ++: libsoldout, VS Code (only ++); gitlab uses slightly different syntax {+ additions +} or [- deletions -]

(4) By Stephan Beal (stephan) on 2024-04-23 14:15:37 in reply to 1.2 [source]

Proposal: add more markdown emphasis chars

@juef: please be sure to check your mail - possibly your spam folder - for a mail from me earlier today regarding your developer account.

(5) By Offray (offray) on 2024-05-21 23:03:42 in reply to 3.9 [link] [source]

On a sightly related topic (the fact that the common spec in insufficient for more elaborated, but common enough documentation tasks), Jhon McFarlane is proposing djot, that tries to be familiar enough to Markdown users while learning from Markdown's limitations of the format and the creation of parsers for it.

Things like admonitions, subscripts, superscripts, additions and deletions are part of that format. I think is evolving in a good direction and is a format to have in the radar, regarding conversations like the one on this thread.