Re: Markdown Group - What set of goals?

I would like to see a generic mapping that would work with (X)HTML - the
output should be able to work in all of those.

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 19 November 2012 16:04, Michael C <m@michaelcullum.com> wrote:
> > I'd say, for comparison and interop between convertors, we should
> probably create technical note regarding the transformation to HTML.
>
> Two scoping issues there Michael.
> 1. What media are we bringing in scope
> 2.     Which begs the question is implementation (or expected
> transform) in scope
>
> HTML seems the most common output format, indeed MD defines semantics
> in terms of expected HTML output.
>
> How would you like to see the transform defined?
> A simple table of input to HTML output?
>
> which html? 4.1, 5? XHTML?
>
> I think scope is important. Easier to see where we are going when
> scope is clear.
>
> regards
>
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Michael Cullum
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Dave Pawson [mailto:dave.pawson@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: 19 November 2012 12:51
> >> To: public-markdown@w3.org
> >> Subject: Re: Markdown Group - What set of goals?
> >>
> >> On 19 November 2012 12:01, Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com> wrote:
> >> > What would be the Markdown group goals?
> >> >
> >> > 1. Publish a technical note with the markup as originally defined by
> >> > John Gruber. (low effort)
> >> >
> >> > 2. Publish a technical note with the original markup
> >> >    + a cross section of what has been extended and supported
> elsewhere.
> >> >       - needs a description of each extensions
> >> >       - needs an interoperability report of these features
> >> >       - decide what is in, what is out.
> >> >
> >> > 3. Publish a technical note with the implementation details for error
> >> recovery and parsing algorithm?
> >> >
> >> > 4. Something else?
> >>
> >> Since (IMHO) the itch we want to scratch is around 2. above; A base spec
> >>    (more work here than first meets the eye) Something (tbd) around
> >> extensions
> >>     perhaps a review
> >>     perhaps an interop something
> >>     A resolution process perhaps?
> >>
> >> It seems wrong to decide what is in / out.
> >>   At most we could say a, b, c support this bit (perhaps with variants)
> >>
> >> I'd add scope?
> >>    Are we defining a syntax only?
> >>    transforms (to what?)
> >>    How to include some definition of semantics, which I think is needed.
> >>
> >>
> >> regards
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dave Pawson
> >> XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
> >> Docbook FAQ.
> >> http://www.dpawson.co.uk
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Dave Pawson
> XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
> Docbook FAQ.
> http://www.dpawson.co.uk
>
>


-- 
Shane P. McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.