|
|
|
|
|
by semisight
4306 days ago
|
|
Change is sorely needed, I agree. And I don't think that the Common Markdown team should be forced to be backwards-compatible (I would prefer they didn't). However, Gruber's request to simply not call it Markdown is fairly reasonable, the same way you wouldn't call Clojure "Common Lisp." |
|
And since this new standard differs so little, compared to the other flavours who do call themselves "FooBar Markdown" without much reaction from Gruber, I think it's only reasonable they call themselves "Markdown" as well.
I don't recall, John McCarthy complaining about Common Lisp taking a name claiming they were now the new and official Lisp. And this Lisp differs quite considerably from his original, with lexical scope and all. Even Scheme and Clojure, who don't bear the name, say all over that they're a Lisp.
So, I can't be sympathetic to Gruber's reaction. He abandoned ship. He forfeited the right to steer it.