- From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 08:25:58 +0000
- To: Markdown List <public-markdown@w3.org>
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