Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Recommendation 9 from Results and analysis of the survey of I-D authors on formats and tools

> On 5/02/2021, at 10:28 AM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> 
> In article <E77A02FF-4DF8-4030-BC77-4355A705E00E@adobe.com> you write:
>> Supporting Markdown as an input option is a good idea - but why would you support a non-standard version of it?   CommonMark
>> (https://commonmark.org/) is the relevant "specification" for markdown.  Kramdown, on the other hand, is a specific tool that promotes its own
>> flavor...
> 
> People are using at least two slightly incompatible markdown tools to prepare I-D's, kramdown and mmark.
> 
> If we're going to adopt markdown, we need at least to decide what we mean by markdown.  I don't
> have any strong opnions about how to get to that point.

I'm concerned that we might be in a position where we can only adopt markdown by extending it so far beyond common usage that we create a unique IETF markup language.  We’re probably not too far from that position already.

Jay

> 
> R's,
> John
> 
> ___________________________________________________________
> Tools-discuss mailing list - Tools-discuss@ietf.org
> This list is for discussion, not for action requests or bug reports.
> * Report datatracker and mailarchive bugs to: datatracker-project@ietf.org
> * Report tools.ietf.org bugs to: webmaster@tools.ietf.org
> * Report all other bugs or issues to: ietf-action@ietf.org
> List info (including how to Unsubscribe): https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
> 

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
jay@ietf.org