IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Thu, 04 February 2021 22:19 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69F2F3A18C2 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 14:19:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 km0uk6bkaGTY for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 14:19:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf34.google.com (mail-qv1-xf34.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA1A03A18C0 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 14:19:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf34.google.com with SMTP id u16so2540283qvo.9 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 04 Feb 2021 14:19:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=9FSNfCN7AgX1+RDkegTBtq0v/J+tgw5iyAVdREIy/AU=; b=KEVezFffkjPGMXoyvsJkEqctChcJ14vK32edWNg5icLsdD9/sGF7qk/b2+CbwpKB8o d18rKH/y4nQk5lsWfc/VZGAjxz8ZouujHc61l9HneXNO+e/LDYxJrgGdFZtoCtM8Hv0V Cpz1zkMdHzgP04mPIRfZcJd34T4eeShLg+ptXWucaRt/msR9bVFulfheWx8Uo5kOv+G0 okkLnr0JhLmsRMuB+l2EdRaSQK/FxO4s8eoaw9EleMSmcA+ahyrVEO/wu5eNGj/9cMGN h0zlh4buJRLP+JRJj95smWL75/3zXOXaogrTbUl3sxXYDYmLSXh7KjPBKGEQGc4FrcPz xMEw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=9FSNfCN7AgX1+RDkegTBtq0v/J+tgw5iyAVdREIy/AU=; b=Th9f2GYttRE3h8BmFkoJIt+nVhoSDZejN8h5VewDMnSYOFRb6IBs8+8VI3aRP9cfrC W7dAioTQeFt551DuSRvbCvDJUfK0yeXl6mByienp4F+Qc4rmoOoNOnK+gOYqtzVqLY9k IQMRAGCbyrhsbAFtM7Gdr0XcZB3aBfjOPf+asAo+AZTv2g9spgBcpAJHsTGY24oRvXV6 MWzH0N7LJURzAE1g/x9OlxQMKozyY9zGDj/07mXg9jb91Q8BhIzrhuTJAoaBsf0UoPsM +YDIYiewdOWTGXCiqpnZSE3cTdo7ORcg3F3rAWrkivFm1k6pZPFeOm5K+An+fotUmn9N QDLw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5314y32btpN9iclLVfwSSS4HpjBKNkvuDujh4xC5ubXFvxmy+jfO b9j1IUUV8R6gONBc3KiNwTiNLw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyDV4xBAoAWNSM8cJSjUuGMAcy0d8xbr8Az7fhDfJIJYDWEwPlxArxAVzVEktlgolPYJquo2Q==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:9d3:: with SMTP id dp19mr1514378qvb.40.1612477172484; Thu, 04 Feb 2021 14:19:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mithrandir.lan (c-24-91-177-160.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [24.91.177.160]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q6sm6434853qkd.41.2021.02.04.14.19.31 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 04 Feb 2021 14:19:31 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <D858A521-6E68-4298-8D5B-D5F5890A3B8C@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DE49549B-7FFC-44C4-B643-7664143E9E3C"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\))
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2021 17:19:30 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBPskgioyDt2HcAzg-Na_zZdSH9jzdWhs3Q7GKT4eL7P7A@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, tools-discuss <tools-discuss@ietf.org>, lrosenth@adobe.com
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
References: <20210204212841.617DC6D625A0@ary.local> <44B40EDF-A2DB-42E7-9B28-65500354CF14@ietf.org> <CABcZeBPskgioyDt2HcAzg-Na_zZdSH9jzdWhs3Q7GKT4eL7P7A@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/dnnrR8h1VkK6m1L8vVe2K9l8PbA>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Recommendation 9 from Results and analysis of the survey of I-D authors on formats and tools
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2021 22:19:35 -0000

On Feb 4, 2021, at 4:58 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
> I've done quite a bit of writing in kramdown (for RFCs) plus a number of other flavors of markdown. There are a few things that we would probably need that are not in CommonMark:
> 
> - Metadata at the top
> - Figure captions
> - Named section references (I think)
> - Special syntax for bibliography entries.
> 
> The good news is that things will mostly render correctly with standard parsers even if you invent special syntax for these. We might also be able to borrow from existing markdown extensions.

IIRC from looking recently, CommonMark lacks definition lists. I’m not a big fan of either CommonMark or Kramdown, but if I had to pick, I’d pick kramdown.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email