Re: extension of markdown files

I actually think that extensions are usually NOT in scope.  However, if you
don't think there should be a media type, an extension is an obvious
announcement mechanism.  Without at least one of these, it is hard for a
generic processor to decide how to handle the content.  You would have to
'open the envelope' and inspect / sniff.  Do-able, but not great.

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:19 AM, Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote:

> If you feel that filename extensions should be within scope, please speak
> up.
>
>
> regards
>
> On 20 November 2012 04:10, Pablo Olmos de Aguilera C.
> <pablo@glatelier.org> wrote:
> > On 19 November 2012 22:07, Brandon Frohs <bfrohs@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com> wrote:
> >>> Usually I have seen the current extension used for Markdown files:
> >>>
> >>> .md
> >>> .mdown
> >>> .markdown
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Shane McCarron <ahby@aptest.com>
> wrote:
> >>> I have seen .mkd as well.
> >>
> >> It should be noted .md, .markdown, and .mkd are recognized in Ubuntu
> >> 12.10 as "Markdown document (text/x-markdown)" (.mdown is *not*
> >> recognized).
> >
> > There was another thread just talking about document content. In my
> > experience, most used extensions (in order of frequency):
> >
> > .md
> > .markdown
> > .mkd
> >
> > (First time I see .mdown)
> >
> > Considering afaik, most platforms already understand those three as
> > "markdown" documents (github, ubuntu for example). Maybe we should
> > stay with them. Or remove one (3 extensions seems a bit too much).
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Pablo Olmos de Aguilera Corradini - @PaBLoX
> > http://www.glatelier.org/
> > http://about.me/pablox/
> > http://www.linkedin.com/in/pablooda/
> > Linux User: #456971 - http://counter.li.org/
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Dave Pawson
> XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
> Docbook FAQ.
> http://www.dpawson.co.uk
>
>


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