Re: header syntax.

On Nov 23, 2012, at 7:19 AM, Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote:

> Do you think headers well defined? I don't. Too many variants, too
> many unclear and open to interpretation scenarios.

Yes. There is atx style, which is

# ... #*\n

and setext style for h1 and h2, which is

...\n
=+\n

and

...\n
-+\n

The number of underline characters for setext style headers may need to be clarified further to avoid ambiguity, but if setext is widely used, a spec that invalidates it won't be welcomed.

I think an idea that is falling by the wayside in these discussions is that markdown has two goals: first, it should be a syntax that can be transformed easily into presentational formats, and second, it should "look nice" in its native format. Our spec needs to make sure the format is well-defined in order to facilitate the first, but also flexible enough to fulfill the second, which is more subjective.

> This is for the core/ baseline remember. Additional syntax can be
> added with other profiles.

If we plan to define a core that invalidates a significant number of existing documents, then I think we need to define the other profiles necessary to keep those documents valid simultaneously, or, again, risk rejection of our spec.

> That would be my preference, starting from simple, clearly defined
> syntax and semantic, valid with current implementations, adding
> complexity as we feel is justified.

"Valid with current implementations" is only one half; "encompasses expected usage" is the other.

Ryan

Received on Friday, 23 November 2012 14:28:05 UTC