Re: Markdown and implementers Re: Markdown Content-Type

Very well said Karl.

Wholeheartedly agree.

Dave

On 22 November 2012 04:39, Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com> wrote:
> These are just my 2 cents of an opinion ;)
>
> Le 22 nov. 2012 à 12:54, marbux a écrit :
>> They don't like metadata.
>
> Each we say *They*, we lose as a community. ;) so not a good starting point.
>
>> Sounds like the only remaining metadata option would be a new file name extension, and I doubt that would fly either.
>
> The important here is what will be used and implemented. If we come up with a document which solves the issue of people implementing then there will be adoption. If we create something which is perfect but as a near-zero implementation surface then we fail.
>
>> Maybe distinguishing between standardized Markdown and non-standardized Markdown must be off the table too?
>
> IMHO, yes.
>
> Our first goal should be:
>     Just solve the current issue of John Gruber
>     specification in a way that current implementers
>     will be able to have interop.
>
> It's not very fun, I agree.
> not very rewarding either.
> not very sexy.
>
> But it's the first step we can do toward:
>
> 1. improving the status quo
> 2. helping implementers to have a reference document
> 3. Implementers fixing "bugs" and undefined behaviors in implementations.
>
> Once we have that, we can move forward. Hopefully by then, we would have convinced that we are doing good stuff. And they will have joined and worked with us.
>
> I also think we should minimize discussions on
>
> "how it would be cool to have this"
>
> and push further on
>
> "how do we properly describe/specify that part of Markdown"
>
>
> --
> Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/
> Developer Relations, Opera Software
>
>



-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
Docbook FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk

Received on Thursday, 22 November 2012 08:29:42 UTC