Standard Markdown is now Common Markdown

blog
84

If you want to use the argument that it is not a derivative work of Markdown.pl and the specifications provided under the trademark Markdown, then it is completely inappropriate to use the name Markdown in the name at all, whether it is Standard Markdown or Common Markdown. If it is not a derivative work, then it really creates more confusion.

1 Like
85

I think you cannot say that this new spec of Markdown is the right version of Markdown, which the name Standard or Common suggests.

Like IainDelaney said, I like the name “Extended Markdown”. This name means that this is not the original version but a derived work.

Also, Gruber is being a dick at Twitter.

1 Like
86

“Common” sounds like a synonym for “standard” to me. Why rush this? Why not wait a few more days for an answer? I also find that “Strict Markdown” sounds good.

87

I like that you’re trying to contribute names that won’t cause additional strife, but I think that it’s pretty clear from Gruber’s responses that there is likely no name including M******n that will be approved if @codinghorror – or anyone else involved in the standardization process – asks for permission.

2 Likes
88

I think the goals of this project are great. A markup language that has a well defined spec, is based on the popular Markdown, and provides implementation code in a variety of languages. Sounds wonderful.

But all that gets lost because of (what seems like) some serious arrogance.

‘Markdown’ is a trademark of John Gruber, whether you like it or not. It doesn’t have to be registered trademark. And it clearly seems your use of the term Markdown is specifically to benefit from the name recognition that “Markdown” provides. Otherwise, you would just name the product something else.

Naming things is hard? Get over it. That’s just another excuse. I have to name every single product I create and it has to be meaningful and original. That’s part of creating a product. Consider Fountain. There are no issues with Fountain, despite it being a derivative of Markdown. Why? Because it’s not trying to directly trade on Markdown’s name. Can’t come up with a cool name on your own, then ask the community for suggestions (ones that don’t use “Markdown”).

Also – using either “Standard” or “Common Markdown” is even more egregious because it presents the idea that you are the standard bearer of the trademarked “Markdown”. You’re not. You simply have a spec for a markup language.

Gruber clearly provided one reasonable response and one snarky. Your options are clear:

  1. Use the reasonable “Strict Markdown”.
  2. Come up with a new name that does not use Markdown in it.
  3. Suggest alternative and only move forward if it is approved.

Pretty Simple.

It’s argued that this project is not a flavor of Markdown. Sorry - but you’re wrong. Anything that isn’t Markdown.pl would be considered a flavor of Markdown. Your flavor includes strict descriptions of behavior. That’s a lofty goal, but it is a flavor. It may become commonplace in usage, but that’s something for others to decide (based on the adoption of the code). Frankly, “Strict Markdown” is quite an appropriate name for this flavor.

To me, one of the bigger signs of this overall arrogance is the part about waiting for 24hrs and not getting a response, so you’re going with Common Markdown. Gruber doesn’t have to respond. He doesn’t have to agree to any of the suggestions made. He offered his take. It also seems like evidence that your efforts aren’t in good faith. You want to make it sound like you tried, but you really didn’t. And you still want the benefits of the brand that is “Markdown”. Either that, or you didn’t learn any lessons from the last big mistake in naming your product.

Whether Gruber is snarky, doesn’t respond in a fashion you deem timely, doesn’t update said product, doesn’t contribute to these specifications are all irrelevant. That sounds like pure self-justification to the world on why you’re taking this inappropriate and wrong action.

The steps forward seem pretty clear. Everything else is really just an excuse.

3 Likes
89

Common and standard may be synonyms under certain usages, but here, IMHO, it’s unambiguous.

Take a look at the (many) dictionary definitions of “standard.”

My take of the push back against standard is that it could imply definition 1 for standard: “official.” And I can understand Gruber not wanting an outside party to command anything official about Markdown.

Common does not have a definition that is synonymous with official. At all.

This makes sense: if I talk about “Standard English”, “Standard Practice”, or “Standard Dance”, those are very different ideas than "Common English, “Common Practice”, or “Common Dance.”

Common, used here by Jeff & co., is using common’s definition #1: “shared alike by two or more or all in question.”

It’s the Markdown parser compatibility highlight reel. It’s the subset of behaviors found most frequently across implementations. It’s the common usage.

4 Likes
90

More specifically: the set of synonyms for common and the set of synonyms for standard are not equivalent.

Further, the relevant subsets of synonyms are the ones relevant to the way each word is used.

My take is that “Standard” could be construed as “Official”, which “Common” cannot be.

Please see my earlier post: Standard Markdown is now Common Markdown

1 Like
91

I don’t understand why you’re not going with one of the names he suggested?

  1. Assuming that you’ll never get a reply if you don’t hear from him in <24hrs is insane. (The fact that he Twittered is not proof that he’s not busy! Some people twitter while driving!)

  2. “Common Markdown” has the exact same problem as “Standard Markdown”. It strongly implies that you have real authority over markdown as a whole. I’d be pissed if you used either of those names to fork a project I created. Even if I otherwise wasn’t touchy about the name. (Imagine “Standard Discourse”. You don’t want that non-standard version from Atwood’s website, you want the Standard one. )

  3. “Pedantic Markdown” is actually a pretty cool name. (And it implies exactly what it is. It’s not more standard or common than the existing common standard, but it is more rigidly defined.)

  4. You’re really, really throwing it in his face to ignore his suggestions and go with a new name that means and implies the exact same thing as the name he was furious with. If it was me, I’d take more than 24hrs to cool down enough to write a civil reply.

2 Likes
92

Jeff Atwood, I would like to thank you for showing us the right and proper way to handle misunderstandings between two well-meaning parties! Knowing how to handle these sorts of misunderstandings is arguably harder than most of the other development tasks we do on a daily basis and seeing an accomplished developer like yourself exemplify this sort of goodwill towards others helps the rest of us be both better developers and better communicators!

93

You do realize that is a derogatory word, right?

pedantic /pɪˈdantɪk/ adjective
excessively concerned with minor details or rules; overscrupulous: his analyses are careful and even painstaking, but never pedantic.

Generally, Gruber has been rather rude and obnoxious about this whole thing, disparaging Jeff both on Twitter and on his podcast. I don’t understand why you think the open source community should bow to his demands.

2 Likes
94

Common and standard may be synonyms under certain usages, but here, IMHO, it’s unambiguous.

Not … really? I can’t think of a situation where the “Common” version of a software thing wouldn’t also be considered either the “standard” or at least the “De facto standard” of that thing.

The terms have other non-overlapping meanings, but in this usage, they both incorrectly imply that this project has some sort of authority or primacy over the original.

Edit: Oh. I get it. You’re assuming that “common” means “the intersection of all sets” definition of the word. I assumed it was meant to imply the “generally known; held in common” definition.

Even if that’s the intent, it’s far from obvious, and the alternate reading has a LOT of insulting presumptuous implications.

95

You do realize that is a derogatory word, right?

I’m aware of what the word means.

Are you aware that in common usage it’s often used with pride and slight irony by people who value attention to detail?

Such usage might not be strictly dictionary-correct, but among software developers it’s probably more common than the correct usage.

That’s why it makes a great name. Let’s not be pedants.

Generally, Gruber has been rather rude and obnoxious about this whole thing

I haven’t followed it close enough to have an opinion on whether Gruber is being a dick. Hey may be. I don’t know.

Either way, it doesn’t really excuse other people, though.

96

Generally, Gruber has been rather rude and obnoxious about this whole thing, disparaging Jeff both on Twitter and on his podcast. I don’t understand why you think the open source community should bow to his demands.

They don’t have to – unless they want to insist on using the name he controls: Markdown.

I’ve seen a big sense of entitlement from the open source community on this. But what they present are just justifications they use as excuses for their behavior of trying to usurp someone’s trademark and brand.

The solution remains simple: Jeff & company needs to find their own name and stop trying to benefit off someone else’s brand without their permission.

2 Likes
97

I am aware that some cultures use derogative words with pride. However, there are many different cultures, and while it might work well in Europe to call it “Fucking Markdown” or something like that, that might turn a lot of other people off from using the name.

98

I’m pretty sure Markdown wouldn’t qualify as a trademark, and “brand” is in this case mostly just a synonym for trademark, not a separate legal category.

As for the name belonging to Gruber, I don’t agree with that. Just because he came up with the name for an open standard, does not give him the right to determine the use of that name (and thus the direction of the project) for all eternity.

If Gruber wanted to keep Markdown as his property, he should not have made it an open standard.

99

It’s finally starting to fade out now, but “Subversion” seemed to do quite well. Its name is an ironic usage of a derogatory term.

(It even seemed to do ok when it was renamed “Apache Subversion” against all common sense.)

100

I’m not a lawyer but the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office says,

Q. Is registration of my mark required?

A. No. You can establish rights in a mark based on legitimate use of the mark.

So even if Gruber hasn’t registered the trademark, one supposes that he still has a pretty strong case for owning it.

1 Like
101

I don’t know what the legal situation is, or who holds the trademark to the name.

My point is only that if this post is supposed to be an apology for infuriating Gruber by choosing a presumptuous name without consulting him, it probably should not end with the revelation that Atwood has now chosen another presumptuous name without consulting him.

3 Likes
102

I don’t think calling someone subversive is necessarily derogatory. Depends a lot on what he’s trying to subvert.

1 Like
103

Neither am I, but a trademark is:

A trademark, trade mark, or trade-mark[1] is a recognizable sign, design or expression which identifies products or services of a particular source from those of others.

I don’t think the name of a technical language with many different implementation counts as any of these.

1 Like