Re: Current syntax

I agree that using MD makes sense for the source of this specification.
 However, there are some significant advantages to using tools like ReSpec
when producing a W3C spec.  There are lots of W3C things that are required
/ expected and might be challenging to express in MD.  With tools like
ReSpec they come for free.

Of coutrse, it would be possible to create a tool chain that took MD input
and created ReSpec based HTML output.  I will ponder that.

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 20 November 2012 04:01, Pablo Olmos de Aguilera C.
> <pablo@glatelier.org> wrote:
> > On 19 November 2012 12:48, Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> http://www.w3.org/community/markdown/wiki/Syntax
> >>
> >> I've done a quick review, with regard to a baseline.
> >> It would appear that the current implementation has corner cases and
> >> complexities
> >> that could be simplified.
> >> Look for the @FIXME comments.
> >
> > It looks weird on mediawiki. I think we should try to use something
> > different. Maybe dvcs.w3c.org as someone (maybe you?).
>
> One level of complexity is enough for me Pablo!
> We are discussing MD, so using it shouldn't be so strange!
>
>
> >
> > Abourt code fences, I totally agree... let's make the "basic" and then
> > we can start discussing which "extensions" we can move into the
> > "core".
>
> Thanks for that. I think extensions to a basic syntax is likely to be the
> most contentious area, so a minimal set seems a good basis from
> which to start.
>
> regards
>
>
>
> --
> Dave Pawson
> XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
> Docbook FAQ.
> http://www.dpawson.co.uk
>
>


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