- From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 08:29:14 +0000
- To: Markdown List <public-markdown@w3.org>
Very well said Karl. Wholeheartedly agree. Dave On 22 November 2012 04:39, Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com> wrote: > 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 > > -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. Docbook FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk
Received on Thursday, 22 November 2012 08:29:42 UTC