Seems you're right. I could have sworn there were personal attacks. Guess my memory is faulty. I put a note in my comment to reflect that.
I think it was jackassery to presume the ability to use the name Standard Markdown without affermative consent from Gruber.
They sent two emails and Gruber didn't reply. Maybe he ignored them, maybe they got lost in a torrent. I don't remember what Gruber said on his podcast (if anything, I seem to remember he didn't want to talk about it much).
They took a 'ask for forgiveness' (because we don't like what you are doing/not doing) approach when I think decorum dictates an 'ask for permission' approach. If you don't get it (they didn't) then call it something else. Stack Overflow Markdown, Spolsky-down, Easymark, whatever.
The implication of the term Standard Markdown is clear. WE own it, WE control it, WE'RE in charge. They didn't have permission/authority for that and did it anyway.
I found that a very jackass move. I stopped following Spolsky because I lost respect for him for doing it.
But if you read [the apology][1] I previously linked, you'll see that Jeff Atwood (not Joel Spolsky btw; he is not involved in CommonMark in any way AFAIK) stated that the attitude you're inferring from the name "Standard Markdown" ("WE own it, WE control it, WE'RE in charge.") was never the intent:
> We were simply trying to pick a name that correctly and accurately reflected our goal – to build an unambiguous flavor of Markdown. If the name we chose made inappropriate overtures about Standard Markdown being anything more than a highly specified flavor of Markdown, I apologize. Standard does have certain particular computer science meanings, as in IETF Standard, ECMA Standard. That was not our intent, it was more of an aspirational element of "what if, together, we could eventually..".
You're of course free to dismiss that explanation as insincere, but I think you may be reading some malicious intent into this that simply wasn't there.
I remember the apology, and I understand why the name "standard" appealed to him. It's certainly what he was trying to do and normally would be a great name.
Except someone else was in control of Markdown so calling your project "Standard Markdown" seems rather hostile to me (or at least rather oblivious).
I think it was jackassery to presume the ability to use the name Standard Markdown without affermative consent from Gruber.
They sent two emails and Gruber didn't reply. Maybe he ignored them, maybe they got lost in a torrent. I don't remember what Gruber said on his podcast (if anything, I seem to remember he didn't want to talk about it much).
They took a 'ask for forgiveness' (because we don't like what you are doing/not doing) approach when I think decorum dictates an 'ask for permission' approach. If you don't get it (they didn't) then call it something else. Stack Overflow Markdown, Spolsky-down, Easymark, whatever.
The implication of the term Standard Markdown is clear. WE own it, WE control it, WE'RE in charge. They didn't have permission/authority for that and did it anyway.
I found that a very jackass move. I stopped following Spolsky because I lost respect for him for doing it.