Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-lhotka-netmod-yang-markup-00

[Phil Shafer <[e-mail]>]

Ladislav Lhotka writes:
>leaf foo {
>    description "This is my *favourite* leaf.";
>    type string;
>}
>
>you may not like it, but it is absolutely legal and IMO also readable by humans. As William previously mentioned, some communities are already doing similar things. The principal aim of my I-D is to allow module authors to explicitly state that they adhere to some rules, which helps authors of tools reduce guesswork.

1) I think there's a difference between people using our ancient
ascii-based conventions that help the reader grok the author's
meaning, and supporting markdown (plus other syntaxes) that allow
ascii documents to produce HTML.

2) It's not something where one can say "don't use it if you don't
like it", because we will have to read these description statements
for review, etc.

3) Markdown is a class of tools, not a common tool.  CommonMark
works to standardize this, but I've no clue how "common" it is.

4) Consider that github supports >9 formats.  Are we expecting
readers/reviewers to become knowledgable about each of these?

Thanks,
 Phil