Revisions to Will CommonMark be adopted for SE? [duplicate]

edited tags

Link

edited Aug 3, 2021 at 21:35

Catija Staff

110.6k
46
296
422

Post Closed as "Duplicate" by Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog, Pierre.Vriens, user707129, Robert Longson, PeterJ

We're switching to CommonMark

occurred Jun 2, 2020 at 2:47

edited tags

Link

edited Jun 1, 2020 at 19:12

animuson StaffMod

190k
38
581
851

discussion status-planned markdown

Notice removed Current answers are outdated by CommunityBot

occurred Aug 24, 2016 at 11:36

Bounty Ended with no winning answer by CommunityBot

occurred Aug 24, 2016 at 11:36

Notice added Current answers are outdated by Stijn

occurred Aug 16, 2016 at 10:13

Bounty Started worth 50 reputation by Stijn

occurred Aug 16, 2016 at 10:13

fix example number and broken link

Source Link

edit approved Dec 16, 2014 at 21:49

SevenSidedDie

5.8k
28
38

An official spec for CommonMark with reference implementation was released recently.

Will these specs (with optional additions like MathJax for those sites that already have it) be adopted? There are some places where the implementation deviates, example 333 example 371 [link](foo(and(bar))) amongst others.

Or will it break too many posts?

An official spec for CommonMark with reference implementation was released recently.

Will these specs (with optional additions like MathJax for those sites that already have it) be adopted? There are some places where the implementation deviates, example 333 [link](foo(and(bar))) amongst others.

Or will it break too many posts?

An official spec for CommonMark with reference implementation was released recently.

Will these specs (with optional additions like MathJax for those sites that already have it) be adopted? There are some places where the implementation deviates, example 371 [link](foo(and(bar))) amongst others.

Or will it break too many posts?