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

[Sean Leonard <[e-mail]>]

On 8/3/2014 11:12 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Sean Leonard <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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