Editorial change tracking

[dumblob]

I wonder about all the goals of this project. How "deep" it does want to go?

Seeing other issues like #10 I somewhat fear that djot will not be compatible with e.g. CriticMarkup which I myself consider among the fundamental Markdown extensions with large user base.

Do you plan to keep djot compatible with CriticMarkup and/or other extensions from ExtraMark, MultiMarkdown, etc. (see https://gist.github.com/vimtaai/99f8c89e7d3d02a362117284684baa0f )?

[jgm]

Unlike with commonmark, compatibility isn't a major goal for this project. I'm trying to imagine something clean and principled, unburdened by compatibility requirements.

[dumblob]

If that is the case, then let me suggest support for editorial change tracking as the world has moved on and easy collaboration became a necessity. I deliberately do not suggest any syntax for that and would first like to hear your ideas.

Thanks!

[jgm]

djot does already have syntax for marking insertions, deletions, and comments.

[dumblob]

And the most important - substitution - could be added? Substitution maintains much more semantical information than just plain insertion and deletion (as it linkes these two in a fine-grained manner). It could also be easier to write & read.

[jgm]

Critic markup syntax for substitution:

{~~isn't~>is~~}

I don't know. To me, this seems just as readable, if not more so:

{-isn't-}{+is+}

It's also shorter.

[bpj]

Having had to parse the CriticMarkup syntax with regex I agree with @jgm.

[dumblob]

Let me clarify - I do not care about syntax.

I do care about the semantics and basically I just want to "nudge" users to stop thinking in terms of additions and deletions of tiny parts of text (words, characters) but rather in terms of substitutions of larger parts of text (phrases, sentences). In practice people tend to use the small parts which gets messy very soon. Guidelines are ineffective. Therefore I would like the technology itself nudge the users to do it in a more acceptable fashion.

Thoughts?