Add link to the repo for the https://github.github.com/gfm page?

[Pomax]

It would be useful to have a link in the README.md for folks to know where to file issues for the GFM spec (https://github.github.com/gfm) page (and ideally, have that page tell people where it lives so they can file issues about spec incompletion or errors).

I was hoping to find that here because I want to raise the issue that the current spec has too many HTML "start conditions", with several conditions simply being the same thing (condition 7 wholly entails condition 6, warranting a text update.

[github-actions]

Stale issue message

[Pomax]

No it isn't: issues need to have been triaged before they can go stale. Instead the bot should be yelling at you, @github, for not even having looked at an issue that's been sitting untriaged for half a year.

Don't make a bot flag issues stale that haven't even been looked at yet

[github-actions]

Stale issue message

[Pomax]

Never have a bot mark an issue stale until it's been commented on by a project member.

This isn't complicated.

[github-actions]

Stale issue message

[Pomax]

And again. It's almost like no one's looking at this repo, eh @github?

[github-actions]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[Pomax]

Again: don't mark untriaged issues as stale. Ping the maintainers instead as "you have untriaged issues, review them"

[github-actions]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[Pomax]

@maxbeizer would you be the right person to ping on this? If not, is there someone else I can ping? It's been sitting around untriaged for a while now and the current bot behaviour is pretty much the opposite of useless because it marks issues as stale that haven't even been seen by project members.

[kivikakk]

El 22 abr 2025, a las 0:35, Pomax ***@***.***> escribió: Pomax left a comment (github/markup#1763) @kivikakk would you be the right person to ping on this? It's been sitting around forever and it would be very weird if no one was codeowner for this. <https://github.com/kivikakk> <#1763 (comment)> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAAO65VLBIW5HJOUDEWIOT22T64PAVCNFSM6AAAAABCCKBUW2VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDQMJYGU4TEMJYGI> Pomax left a comment (github/markup#1763) <#1763 (comment)> @kivikakk <https://github.com/kivikakk> would you be the right person to ping on this? It's been sitting around forever and it would be very weird if no one was codeowner for this.

Haven’t worked at GitHub in over 5 years. :) While I’m here, though, the GFM spec is based on the CommonMark spec, very deliberately only adding to it and not changing or removing any existing sections — the part you’re remarking on is part of the base CommonMark spec, and not GFM-specific, and so any issues with that text would belong upstream. Additionally, start conditions 6 and 7 are indeed similar, but different enough to require different handling for spec-conformant implementations. Note also that blocks of type 7 cannot interrupt paragraphs, as elaborated in the spec between examples 118 and 119.

[Pomax]

@kivikakk yeah sorry about that, tagged the wrong person and immediately edited the post, but by then you got the notification already.

[maxbeizer]

ohai @kivikakk . Long time and I hope you're doing well 💖

@Pomax thanks for the ping and sorry about the rather annoying bot behavior above. You're proposing that the README be updated? I'm ok with it. Want to fork and send us a PR? Otherwise I'm happy to put it on my stack but can't say when I'll get to it. 🙇