Re: [apps-discuss] Call for Adoption: draft-seantek-text-markdown-media-type

For your information.  I became interested in defining Markdown and made an 
attempt at a Markdown standard, or at least a less ambiguous syntax 
specification than the original.
The document is found at: <http://peteroupc.github.io/markdownsyntax/>

Note that it's currently incomplete, but it should be enough for you to 
comment on it.

The project page is <https://github.com/peteroupc/markdownsyntax>. You can 
raise issues there (or if you prefer, on this mailing list).

--Peter

-----Original Message----- 
From: Sean Leonard
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 10:24 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Call for Adoption: 
draft-seantek-text-markdown-media-type

On 8/3/2014 11:12 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com 
> <mailto:dev+ietf@seantek.com>> wrote:
>
>     Just wanted to add some observations that I made at the APPSAWG
>     presentation:
>
>
> While reviewing our open calls for adoption, I just noticed that this 
> document currently requests Informational status.  Why not Proposed 
> Standard?
>

I am okay with Proposed Standard/Standards-Track status.

However, I am also okay with Informational status.

Section 3.1 of RFC 6838 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6838#section-3.1>
effectively says that the registration proposal for a standards-tree
registration (i.e., text/markdown) MUST be published as an RFC, which
can be Standards Track or Informational (or BCP or Experimental).

Informational is a somewhat lower bar than Standards-Track, and I would
rather have a registration than have the doc mired in techno-politics
and bikeshedding. :)

Ned Freed (and others) made several good points about the nebulous-ness
of the Markdown format. There is no canonical Markdown format that
everybody agrees upon and looks to; the original Gruber specification
leaves much ambiguous. But this proposal avoids adopting work on the
Markdown format. If another person or organization can herd the cats,
good for them. This proposal is primarily about getting the media type
(and parameters) standardized, which would be useful to the community.
If that fits in Standards-Track, then great. Otherwise, Informational
will do just fine.

Cheers,

Sean

_______________________________________________
apps-discuss mailing list
apps-discuss@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss 