I assume you didn't open the link. I appears to be a summary of the type of data you can expect when reading a text/markdown document. It does not define a standard, but it lists contact info for many of the different implementations.
I opened the link. I saw what it was doing, but I still wondered if he had been involved, I didn't see any indication either way.
Perhaps would have been willing to lend his name to something that was just a more formal definition of what he's already created (without the additional stuff that other implementations choose to addd).
Again, trying to define someone else's work when they're available without their support/cooperation seems very hostile to me.
I doubt I would have felt this way if we didn't have the attempted coup of "standard markdown" a few years ago.
> Perhaps would have been willing to lend his name to something that was just a more formal definition of what he's already created (without the additional stuff that other implementations choose to add).
I would assume he wouldn't have been, because "ambiguity is a feature". He has explicitly spoken against any attempt to produce a clear specification of Markdown, so it seems highly unlikely.
I feel like it's not dissimilar to what happened with HTML. Mozilla and Opera tried to get the W3C to write a better spec and iterate on HTML in 2004, and the W3C membership voted against it… they then, with Apple, started their own organisation (the WHATWG) which wrote their own spec called "Web Applications 1.0" which was essentially a new HTML spec.
