- From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:21:31 +0000
- To: Markdown List <public-markdown@w3.org>
On 21 November 2012 08:54, Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com> wrote: > > Le 21 nov. 2012 à 16:57, Dave Pawson a écrit : >> Is the MD syntax? > > This is the syntax as defined in > http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax > >> Have you made any assumptions about scope? > > No assumptions about scope. > >> whats the purpose please? > > To have individual md file for each type of constructs. > And to learn what is missing in the current spec. > There are many things undefined when you dig a bit. > Having a strawman document with the specification rewritten and all issues box for everything which is undefined would be a nice start. Understood. I think we are in general agreement. I'll put another post on a per item basis so we can look at each current MD syntax item and decide if it is in / out for a baseline. Your tests could then reflect those decisions and match our baseline. I can't see anyway round using XHTML output of a transform for testing though, except that it means we need an implementation, and I think we are in agreement that there are untested edge cases with the current Perl MD implementation (one of which you mention). The positive is that we can align input / expected output as a definition, even though we don't have an aligned implementation. Thanks Karl. >> or use manual comparison for a result? > > > Not sure what you mean here. A test normally requires a pass/fail definition. If no auto comparison is done then a visual comparison of actual vs expected is required to define a pass/fail. that's all I meant. -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. Docbook FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2012 09:21:59 UTC