Re: Moving on. A basic para

There are ill-defined areas of Gruber's spec that need clarification, which
our spec should clarify, but hewing to the well-defined aspects seems like
a good idea. Few would fault us for using his spec as a baseline, since it
was the original. That said, if your aim is to develop a spec that is a
baseline over many/most of the existing implementations, perhaps we need to
survey the existing implementations of each feature before making a
decision?

Ryan



On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 21 November 2012 14:11, Ryan Freebern <rfreebern@unionstmedia.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > \n\w*\n but yes.
> >
> >>
> >> IMHO that is an unnecessary complexity?
> >
> >
> > It may be, but I'm loathe to write a spec that invalidates markdown
> > documents that adhere to the well-defined portions of Gruber's initial
> > rules, as I think doing so would decrease the adoption rate.
>
>
> In which case use Grubers implementation. Or any other.
> If other implementations have ideas different from Grubers, this response
> is likely from those users? The aim is a baseline over 'most' / many of the
> implementations, not a faithful to one specification?
> Did you not agree with that idea?
>
> regards
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dave Pawson
> XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
> Docbook FAQ.
> http://www.dpawson.co.uk
>
>