Jocelyn Badgley

I'm fairly certain you'll need to take this one to jsdoctypeparser. Also, isn't the proper nomenclature `mixed` to denote that it can take anything?

Another possibility might be simply removing markdown entirely. Split the command line tool out as a separate package and refocus dox as just a jsdoc parser. Let implementers choose their...

Technically there's nothing preventing anyone from using their own parser today. Just pass in raw:true and run the output yourself (that's how I do it on my own doc sites)....

Changing the title of this, since it sounds like people are leaning more in that direction. At this point I'm pretty persuaded in favor of it. Now that 0.7 is...

This all just further re-enforces my opinion that I should yank automatic markdown processing out of dox entirely for a 1.0 release and let implementers worry about it. It keeps...

documentation.js looks pretty good, this might actually be a proper successor to dox. It looks like they're performing proper static analysis of the code, rather than string parsing. @tj had...

Having an explicit api for extension isn't nessisary. Simply changing dox to invoke functions via `this` instead of `exports` would make the lib extensible via mixins. ``` js var dox...

It would probably be better if extensions were added via `Object.create` and then used `Object.getPrototypeOf`to get at the original. ``` js module.exports = exports = function (dox) { dox =...

Lovely. Thanks for the test case. Gonna leave this unmerged until either I or someone else have a chance to address it.

:+1: