Benct Philip Jonsson

> Compatibility with existing markdown variants isn't a goal of this project. But compatibility with LaTeX display math is? I'd say if it displays as a block then it is...

> > Compatibility with existing markdown variants isn't a goal of this project. > > But compatibility with LaTeX display math is? I'd say if it displays as a block...

> I think that @bpj means that if it is a code block, then the syntax of a code block should be used? Exactly! Sorry for the confusion!

I would suggest to adopt the MediaWiki definition list syntax: ``````mediawiki ; term 1a ; term 1b : def 1a : def 1b : def 1c ; term 2 :...

IMO the right syntax is fairly obvious: ``````djot {width=18cm} !!!  : Caption goes here !!! `````` Of course with 3 being the *minimal* number of bangs in the...

So the syntax is simply this? ``````djot LINE %% COMMENT `````` Like in TeX but (at least) *two* `%` chars? I like it. KISS principle!

As I found for Pandoc Markdown you can already (ab)use raw block/inline syntax for persistent comments as long as the “format” doesn’t coincide with any format actually in use: ````...

> Yes, it is certainly tempting to remove the comment syntax from attributes and just assign `{%..%}` as comment syntax. (An unclosed `{%` would just capture everything up to the...

@jgm that's why I think it is better to have `{%...%}` for inline comments only and `%%%...%%%` for fenced block comments. It would anyway be very confusing to use one...

In MediaWiki tables you can replace the pipe to the left with a bang to get a header cell anywhere, which is nice. Applied to djot it would look something...