Re: extension of markdown files

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