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

[Ned Freed <[e-mail]>]

> In article <[e-mail]> you write:
> >-=-=-=-=-=-
> >-=-=-=-=-=-
> >
> >The biggest issue seems to be that there are a whole bunch of *almost*
> >compatible markups.
> >
> >I would offer one of two directions. One is to punt and do what the draft
> >says - acknowledge incompatible dialects and ignore compatibility.

See my previously posting on this topic. The "incompatibility" we're talking
about here is being overstated.

> > The other
> >is to define an official Markdown markup, presumably based on the Gruber Web
> >site.

Which would be counter to the stated goals of the format.

> Another approach is to do what RFC 4263 did for text/troff.  There's a
> process= parameter which gives the recipient a hint about which
> subflavor of troff it is.  Their example is:

>   Content-Type: text/troff ; process="dformat | pic -n | troff -ms"

I had completely forgotten about text/troff. Variants of troff really are
completely incompatible, to the point where attempting to process them in the
wrong way results in total gibberish. So there is running code for an even more
extreme variant along these lines.

I'd also argue that text/html and even text/plain have "incompatibilities"
similar to those of different markdown variants in actual usage, albeit for
different underlying reasons.

				Ned