We need a moniker for Turing Incomplete that's easier to explain. I'd really like to see this become more of a thing. When groups organize, you can lean on their expertise and expenditure of effort to make your point for you rather than having to fight on your own the whole time.
I'm trying to put together a community wiki for a non-technical group (with ideas of expanding it out to others should I succeed) and every time I dig back into it I'm pretty sure I want a markdown format, and any fancy layout is up to me to sort out. But most markdown engines allow embedded HTML. Which is great when all content is authored by the maintainers, not so great when one tech-savvy troublemaker misuses it to put turing-complete content into the page.
I'm thinking of switching implementation languages to Elixir, and the Elixir Markdown implementations all seem to assume inline HTML is a feature you wouldn't want to toggle. I am already biting off too much, I don't want to throw a parser into that too.
I'm trying to put together a community wiki for a non-technical group (with ideas of expanding it out to others should I succeed) and every time I dig back into it I'm pretty sure I want a markdown format, and any fancy layout is up to me to sort out. But most markdown engines allow embedded HTML. Which is great when all content is authored by the maintainers, not so great when one tech-savvy troublemaker misuses it to put turing-complete content into the page.
I'm thinking of switching implementation languages to Elixir, and the Elixir Markdown implementations all seem to assume inline HTML is a feature you wouldn't want to toggle. I am already biting off too much, I don't want to throw a parser into that too.