Markdown Extended support

[hollowillow]

Syntax:
Markdown Extended would be amazing to have, it supports many features (GFM or github flavoured markdown, YAML front matter, codeblock highlighting), all of which have been pretty much standard for years now, so even having it as just an option seems like a no-brainer. It also has over 300k downloads on packagecontrol.io and is in the top 100 most downloaded.

An example attachment, showing the default syntax highlighting, and the Markdown Extended highlighting

Guideline Criteria:
https://packagecontrol.io/packages/Markdown%20Extended
https://github.com/jonschlinkert/sublime-markdown-extended

[keith-hall]

You can map the Markdown file extensions to MultiMarkdown syntax to get YAML front matter highlighting in bat. Otherwise the only other differences I see is it not highlighting HTML code blocks, and the color schemes don't color the whole headings ...
That syntax you reference looks unmaintained - last updated 8 years ago. Typically the Markdown Extra package is considered the best these days. Once syntect is updated with newer feature support, we would likely switch to that 🙂

[hollowillow]

You can map the Markdown file extensions to MultiMarkdown syntax to get YAML front matter highlighting in bat.

Correct me if I am wrong as I cannot fact check right away, but MultiMarkdown is not supported in bat by default either and has to be externally added? It doesn't matter to me exactly what is used to add this functionality, but the fact that it's not available by default when it has been standard for years and doesn't break backwards compatibility in any way is strange to me.

Typically the Markdown Extra package is considered the best these days.

I'm not exactly an expert in syntax packages, so I've never heard about Markdown Extra. Could you perhaps link me to the official package so I can check it out? It doesn't appear to be on packagecontrol.io.

Once syntect is updated with newer feature support, we would likely switch to that 🙂

I am glad you're thinking about implementing something like this by default, as I imagine it wouldn't be helpful just to me, but to a lot of people.

[keith-hall]

My apologies, I misremembered the name, I was thinking of https://packagecontrol.io/packages/MarkdownEditing.

MultiMarkdown is supported by bat out of the box bat -l MultiMarkdown test.mkd, just not mapped to any file extensions by default I suspect. If the optional front matter is indeed backwards compatible, we can get bat to map those file extensions to MultiMarkdown instead by default.

[hollowillow]

My apologies, I misremembered the name, I was thinking of https://packagecontrol.io/packages/MarkdownEditing.

Thanks, I'll check it out!

MultiMarkdown is supported by bat out of the box bat -l MultiMarkdown test.mkd, just not mapped to any file extensions by default I suspect.

I guess the bat -L option shows only the mapped syntaxes then? Is there a way of viewing all the supported syntaxes, even those not mapped to anything? If not, that should probably still be added to some extent, for clarity.

If the optional front matter is indeed backwards compatible, we can get bat to map those file extensions to MultiMarkdown instead by default.

As far as I know it is. Nothing in the syntax should get changed with front matter support. It would need to be double checked just to make sure of course, but I think it'd be a good move to set it as the default.

[keith-hall]

I guess the bat -L option shows only the mapped syntaxes then?

Yep, it's a bug nobody has got round to fixing yet: #2354 (comment)
I guess because it will affect completions and we don't have tests for them yet #3072

[hollowillow]

Fair enough, I suppose that pretty much concludes this. For now I'll close the issue and hopefully the switch to MultiMarkdown or MarkdownEditing by default will happen sooner or later. Thanks for the help.