Re: Markdown Content-Type

On 20 November 2012 08:02, Michael C <m@michaelcullum.com> wrote:
> I'd say getting a content type would be a good idea if we want to get wider adoption including direct parsing by browsers and email clients (which would be nice but won't happen for a while).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael Cullum

I agree about wider adoption, but do we want direct browser parsing?
Not sure how or who it would help?
Is there a use case Michael?

regards



>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dave Pawson [mailto:dave.pawson@gmail.com]
>> Sent: 20 November 2012 07:57
>> To: Markdown List
>> Subject: Re: Markdown Content-Type
>>
>> On 19 November 2012 21:51, Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com> wrote:
>> > I have no knowledge of any markdown content-type?
>> >
>> > * Should there be one?
>> > * What should it be if yes?
>> > * Is there anything expected from a user agent (mua, browser, etc) when
>> meeting this content-type?
>> >
>> > I can see for example a story where when a user agent meets
>> >
>> > Content-Type: text/$TOBEDEFINED
>> >
>> > It renders it at simple plain text when it doesn't know how to render
>> markdown, and interpret it when it knows. One (furture) benefit could be
>> Mail User Agent with knowledge of markdown.
>>
>> 1. Can we justify requesting a content type?
>> 2. Would rendering as plain text be so bad?
>>
>> Personally I would judge this out of scope.
>>
>>
>> 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

Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2012 08:26:28 UTC