> We strive for maximum capability without breaking any existing formats, therefore we use a slightly unorthodox combination of flavors of markdown. It is broadly CommonMark, with the addition of some functionality from GitHub Flavored Markdown (GFM), some latex support, and our chosen embed syntax
It's the same deal with lisps. Lots of languages are "lisps", even the ones that are slightly different than the ones you're used to. Then there is a Common Lisp that is a language that is also a lisp.
“Markdown” is marketing speak for “you probably already know this”. Which yes, sure, but all the little tiny differences between all the different implementations can act as annoying papercuts.
At least it’s not wiki markup...
[1] GitHub Markdown etc. are fine since they can be called that (X Markdown) and not just “Markdown”.
Searching for "GitHub Markdown" on Google yields the following two links at the top:
- https://guides.github.com/features/mastering-markdown/
- https://docs.github.com/en/github/writing-on-github/getting-...
Some snippets from those two pages, where they call their own syntax just "Markdown":
> Markdown is a lightweight and easy-to-use syntax for styling all forms of writing on the GitHub platform.
> You can use Markdown most places around GitHub:
> Here’s an overview of Markdown syntax that you can use anywhere on GitHub.com or in your own text files.
> Create sophisticated formatting for your prose and code on GitHub with simple syntax.
It's until the bottom of those pages that they start mentioning GitHub Flavored Markdown (GFM).
Just like how Obsidian deals with the very same documentation.
Not sure what the problem is, Markdown has always been different on different entities on the internet, since there is no common specification. Blaming Obsidian for this seems short-sighted.