Re: header syntax.

On 23 November 2012 03:52, David J. Weller-Fahy
<dave-lists-public-markdown@weller-fahy.com> wrote:
> * David J. Weller-Fahy <dave-lists-public-markdown@weller-fahy.com> [2012-11-22 22:53 -0500]:
>> * Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com> [2012-11-22 11:34 -0500]:
>> > Even simpler (and currently conformant)
>> > #  header 1
>> > ## header 2
>> > ### 3
>> > ....
>> >
>> > I.e. removes the potential mess with termination, subsequent text etc.
>> >
>> > Since this is the simplest, currently conformant header definition,
>> > I'd propose that as going into our note.
>>
>> I'm not attached to either, so I'd say the simpler the better.  I agree,
>> the header should be as you've described in the "core" profile.
>
> And finally reading the rest of the threads (I've been doing mailing
> lists long enought to know better ;):
>
> Perhaps there are some who would like to see the absolute minimum syntax
> implemented, and others who would like to see the common features
> implemented.
>
> According to the Deliverables section, the "minimal MD syntax and
> semantic which is in common use" implies a bit of both, depending on
> where you place the emphasis.  Perhaps we should be clear about where
> the emphasis is before continuing?
>
> So:
>
> If the goal is to minimize, then the suggestion above makes sense.
>
> If the goal is to use what is already in place wherever possible without
> changing (as long as most/all implementations agree) then we should
> probably go with the headers as is, and just make sure the syntax we
> define catches the edge cases.
>
> Thoughts?

Perhaps this captures the current debate. I'll set up a poll to find
out which is a majority.

Thanks David.




-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
Docbook FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk

Received on Friday, 23 November 2012 07:43:39 UTC