Markdown and implementers Re: Markdown Content-Type

These are just my 2 cents of an opinion ;)

Le 22 nov. 2012 à 12:54, marbux a écrit :
> They don't like metadata.

Each we say *They*, we lose as a community. ;) so not a good starting point. 

> Sounds like the only remaining metadata option would be a new file name extension, and I doubt that would fly either.

The important here is what will be used and implemented. If we come up with a document which solves the issue of people implementing then there will be adoption. If we create something which is perfect but as a near-zero implementation surface then we fail.

> Maybe distinguishing between standardized Markdown and non-standardized Markdown must be off the table too?

IMHO, yes. 

Our first goal should be:
    Just solve the current issue of John Gruber 
    specification in a way that current implementers
    will be able to have interop.

It's not very fun, I agree. 
not very rewarding either. 
not very sexy.

But it's the first step we can do toward:

1. improving the status quo
2. helping implementers to have a reference document
3. Implementers fixing "bugs" and undefined behaviors in implementations.
 
Once we have that, we can move forward. Hopefully by then, we would have convinced that we are doing good stuff. And they will have joined and worked with us.

I also think we should minimize discussions on 

"how it would be cool to have this"

and push further on 

"how do we properly describe/specify that part of Markdown"


-- 
Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/
Developer Relations, Opera Software

Received on Thursday, 22 November 2012 04:40:12 UTC