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

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2014 23:12:21 -0700

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Sean Leonard <[email-masked]> 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?

-MSK

---

From: Sean Leonard <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 07:24:29 -0700

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

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

---

From: "Peter Occil" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 11:43:46 -0400

For your information.  I became interested in defining Markdown and made an 
attempt at a Markdown standard, or at least a less ambiguous syntax 
specification than the original.
The document is found at: <http://peteroupc.github.io/markdownsyntax/>

Note that it's currently incomplete, but it should be enough for you to 
comment on it.

The project page is <https://github.com/peteroupc/markdownsyntax>. You can 
raise issues there (or if you prefer, on this mailing list).

--Peter

-----Original Message----- 
From: Sean Leonard
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 10:24 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Call for Adoption: 
draft-seantek-text-markdown-media-type

Cheers,

Sean

_______________________________________________
apps-discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 13:31:35 -0400

> document currently requests Informational status.  Why not Proposed 

For registering the media type, Informational status should be 
sufficient. It's not standardizing the format; just registering the 
media type.

     Tony Hansen

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 19:53:18 -0700 (PDT)

> sufficient. It's not standardizing the format; just registering the

Agreed. If, however, the document ends up expanding to include some sort of
shared base syntax (I'm not saying it should or will, but let's suppose), then
there's a case to be made for proposed.

				Ned

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 23:22:55 -0400

> there's a case to be made for proposed.

I would write that as "If >>and only if<< ..." :-)

     Tony Hansen

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 20:28:34 -0700 (PDT)

> I would write that as "If >>and only if<< ..." :-)

Fair point ;-)

				Ned