Re: header syntax.

I do agree with the (evolving) scope and deliverables.  And while there is
no requirement that we document / standardize all of the MD behavior in the
original Daring Fireball spec [1], I feel pretty strongly that we should
adhere to the philosophy of MD.  This says, in part:

Markdown is intended to be as easy-to-read and easy-to-write as is feasible.

Readability, however, is emphasized above all else. A Markdown-formatted
document should be publishable as-is, as plain text, without looking like
it’s been marked up with tags or formatting instructions.
Beyond that, I feel it would be nice if we could avoid 'invalidating'
existing MD content that adheres to the syntax rules specified in that
original MD spec.  Maybe that's naive of me.  I certainly wouldn't advocate
embracing weird syntactic extensions in the Core profile at this point.
 But widely used and widely supported syntaxes that were in the original MD
spec surely are good core candidates, aren't they?   Or am I
misunderstanding what Core profile is meant to include?



[1] http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax


On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 22 November 2012 17:06, Shane McCarron <ahby@aptest.com> wrote:
> > Let me put it another way.  If one of the goals of this work is that we
> > codify current behavior,
>
> Not sure what you mean Shane?
> I'd certainly not say that. Current behaviour is in current multiple
> (different) implementations,
> which is the source and cause behind this work.
>
> Do you agree with http://www.w3.org/community/markdown/wiki/Deliverables ?
>
> If not, what would you change?
>
> regards
>
> --
> Dave Pawson
> XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
> Docbook FAQ.
> http://www.dpawson.co.uk
>
>


-- 
Shane P. McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.