Thanks, but this project only parses the CommonMark spec or some extensions under flags.

For this case, I guess Github Flavored Markdown must have support for superscriptsa and subscripts, and then such a specification could be used under the ENABLE_GFM flag. Also note that your current implementation is breaking CommonMark for strikethrough.

thanks for the reply @Martin1887

i could activate these extensions only with ENABLE_SUPER_SUB flag or something

For this case, I guess Github Flavored Markdown must have support for superscriptsa and subscripts, and then such a specification could be used under the ENABLE_GFM flag.

I don't think super and sub script are in the GFM spec

Also note that your current implementation is breaking CommonMark for strikethrough.

I don't think strikethrough is in the CommonMark spec

https://spec.commonmark.org/0.31.2/

but it is in the GFM spec

https://github.github.com/gfm/#strikethrough-extension-

and you are correct, my changes would break the GFM spec

i have extensions to links and spoilers that i want to do so i guess i will just put them in my fork

Uhm... it seems you are right about specs. I thought that all GFM features were under a flag but I guess developers then though that it cannot hurt.

Some specs have superscripts and subscripts, so simply the most accepted one should be found before merging the changes under a flag. @notriddle?

This definitely needs to be behind a configuration option. The default settings should parse CommonMark and nothing else.

For figuring out how the extension should behave, I pay most attention to GFM, followed by these two:

• commonmark-hs (used by pandoc, which provides a bridge to other formats like wikitext): superscript and subscript
• markdown-it (used by users.rust-lang.org and other Discourse forums, though Discourse doesn't seem to enable this extension by default): superscript and subscript

Both implementations seem to follow the same basic format, where ~subscript~ and ^superscript^ look like that. We should do the same.

So it seems this could be merged after creating a new flag ENABLE_SUPER_SUB.

Moving the strike-through under the ENABLE_GFM would be a breaking change though, but it could be done in a 0.13 to align to the project's philosophy.

i have tried to put my changes behind a ENABLE_SUPER_SUB flag @notriddle , @Martin1887

please let me know if i need to do anything further

So strike-through is already under a flag, I understood from the previous messages it was not.

I have to check in detail the code changes but it looks good, thanks!

Also, it doesn't look like you've actually committed the specfiles. Please add them.

I would recommend separating Options::ENABLE_SUPER_SUB into Options::ENABLE_SUPERSCRIPT and Options::ENABLE_SUBSCRIPT because the syntax of subscript conflicts with GitHub's strikethrough syntax. To avoid the conflict, some users may want to enable only superscript.

@notriddle @Martin1887 @rhysd

i have tried to address the issues mentioned above. this meant tweaking all the test rust files slightly with another optional test parameter

what do you think?

This seems like the right approach, yes.

It seems good, but some errors must be solved before merging. Thanks!

errors corrected @Martin1887

There is an error in cargo fmt now, please format the code to avoid it. Thanks!

done @Martin1887 :)