IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] New Version Notification for draft-seantek-text-markdown-use-cases-01.txt

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Fri, 09 January 2015 01:05 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04BB31A7017 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 17:05:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a6IcOPJxyd3G for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 17:05:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-x233.google.com (mail-wg0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C9FD1A6FF8 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 17:05:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f51.google.com with SMTP id x12so5572014wgg.10 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 08 Jan 2015 17:05:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=C7+JQiVlShp+rR8C3YF9MfFoWYM9hBQ2DLXiNSkwidU=; b=DJdvpbaVmBXfaSL8QY354SFdUDLGL3ZJb62hOeuCKJN1VRFZNfvjh4HCKwUakrVger ExZG/tfc0yds3uNcGg/3leLVHoGpfTPc/4K8eWPhmJF5o4e3vmuB8UcVXjrxZ8P0yHyb ZDK7UwGjVdzxqKzuf57PHLAKXlom/YnLywKErioBVlMEMXgRZb2/cZ8bEJz+hAKYko/o /qWLjXSh2/NCVcBqezzQbc82GCj9Qhz0s13E1h/N+zExCjRpmn/01sfXcl6tBSZWnhvi IuxWarjzhdf/FJCZlz/pVDl7amF+SkqfCyJY/0rW8JpwcfOK/PH+yWuIFje+k3WCL7tc EoPg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.218.39 with SMTP id pd7mr26444975wic.21.1420765507847; Thu, 08 Jan 2015 17:05:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.27.204.198 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 17:05:07 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <21F9EC2D-2F87-4278-A139-F4C19F93CE2B@seantek.com>
References: <20141228232409.13727.85741.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54A11093.1010100@seantek.com> <54A4200C.2040706@ninebynine.org> <21F9EC2D-2F87-4278-A139-F4C19F93CE2B@seantek.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 17:05:07 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwaqzN+jjYjja2b3roO0T9SJTOYXKPQEwdFqWispfsU0rw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1134cd58678ba1050c2dbfed"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/llBNaO7ppfcU04gGhqJgB41gRAI>
Cc: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>, IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] New Version Notification for draft-seantek-text-markdown-use-cases-01.txt
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 01:05:35 -0000

On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com> wrote:

> The links in the References field are to the documentation of the syntax
> for the variant. Frequently, the only documentation about the variant is in
> documentation accompanying the primary implementation (e.g., pandoc =
> README section called pandoc’s markdown).
>
> The prior registration template distinguished between syntax documentation
> and extant implementations. There was a lot of pushback on draft-03 that
> the whole thing was too complicated. (I deemed the objection legitimate on
> grounds that if the registration process is too cumbersome, people who want
> to interoperate with a variant will not bother to register at all.) I tried
> to simplify the template as much as possible; this is the result.
>

I don't think enumerating implementations in a registry is useful because
that will be the most volatile part of what gets registered.  On the other
hand, a reference to the defining document is pretty important to include.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email