CriticMarkdown support

[offray]

I have seen that there is some discussion about annotations. I think that a good light weight alternative would be to implement CriticMarkdown support. The extension is pretty easy to learn and I think will suffice basic editorial needs.

The only place where I will see some difficulties would be on nested long discussions about a particular piece of text, that is a task where hypothesis is better suited. Maybe some bridge between hypothesis and CodiMD via CriticMarkdown could be developed for that in the future.

[ccoenen]

Is this about the workflow or about the new markup tags? I just wonder because you get ++addition++ and ~~strike~~ anyway. Comments could also be included as html-comments <!-- test --> and there's a bunch of highlighting available anyway?

[offray]

It was about new markup tags that support editorial process. But I think that addition, strike and comments will work anyway (I have never liked the html comments markup, which seems too verbose). I think that CriticMarkdown tries to be more evocative with its syntax: {++something++} is not about underlining it, but about adding something to the text, while {--something--} is about erasing something. Using ++ and -- fenced blocks for this kind of behavior seems more mnemonic for me. And the {>>comment<<} next to highlighting is evocative that this highlight is being commented. For compatibility reasons could be better to use HTML comments, but then there is some lost of the more specific editorial comment .

But yes, at some point this would mean some features collision between CommonMark supported features and the ones of CriticMarkdown. Which makes me wonder how the last one is expected to be integrated with the standardization efforts of the first.