Actually Jeff, my definition is pretty wide in scope. About as wide as it gets. True to the original spirit of Markdown, you might even say!
If anything is narrow in scope, it’s the CommonMark spec, which is clearly designed for a specific kind of writing—one that involves a lot of code blocks. It’s clearly for programmers, by programmers. Not even so much as a mention of tables or footnotes? C’mon.
The entire document reads like a nerd’s dream of what Markdown should be. If anyone else had decided to take this project on—say, a group of academics or designers or journalists—it would look very different. To me it proves Gruber’s point that there is no such thing as a “single Markdown spec for everyone.”
Anyway, I’m done arguing about this. Jeff, I wish you success with CommonMark, though I believe the idea is flawed at a fundamental level. I’m sure it will hit the mark with programming-focused writers out there, at least.