- From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 16:50:08 +0000
- To: Markdown List <public-markdown@w3.org>
On 21 November 2012 16:27, Pablo Olmos de Aguilera C. <pablo@glatelier.org> wrote: > On 20 November 2012 10:00, Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 20 November 2012 12:51, Ryan Freebern <rfreebern@unionstmedia.com> wrote: >>> I feel like the spec ought to address "identifying markdown content" in some >>> way, and filename extensions and MIME types are the two obvious ways to do >>> that. I think filename extensions are somewhat arbitrary, but without adding >>> a doctype to the markdown syntax I don't see a better way. That said, I've >>> only ever seen .md, .mkd, and .markdown. >>> >>> Ryan >> >> My view. >> media-type is only useful when served, say, via http >> a filename extension is useful locally for application association. >> A doctype is an extension to a baseline spec. > > I don't understand what do you mean by the "baseline". Our first deliverable is a syntax and semantic for a 'baseline' MD. I.e. syntax and clear specification of semantic, scoped to be common to 'many' if not most implementations. Hence a doctype or metadata specifying the mime-type is out of scope for the baseline, in scope for MD extensions later. Sorry if that wasn't clear. > Specifically, I hope to define in our baseline spec (if I understood > the term correctly): > > + file extensions: .md, .mkd and .markdown > + mime type: text/markdown -1 for me on this. > > (Well, the last can only be done after we have markdown standarized). Yes. That's why I'm suggesting both are for later, after we have a 'baseline' markdown defined. regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. Docbook FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2012 16:50:39 UTC