Subject: [apps-discuss] On the markdown documents

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 16:33:09 -1000

Colleagues,

Alexey and I have discussed it, and we recommend that the WG not adopt
draft-seantek-text-markdown-use-cases at this time.  We would like the WG
to focus on developing draft-ietf-appsawg-text-markdown with Sean until
it's ready to go at least to WGLC, or preferably to the IESG, and then we
can adopt draft-seantek-text-markdown-use-cases if there's still the energy
and desire to publish it at that time.

If there are no objections to that call, we encourage the WG to reviewing
the -03 version of the main markdown draft and check on the open questions
Sean brought up today (see the meeting materials).  Or perhaps Sean could
re-state what he sees as the open issues on this or another thread.

Thanks,
-MSK, APPSAWG co-chair

---

From: Sean Leonard <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 17:53:23 -1000

On Nov 10, 2014, at 4:33 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Colleagues,
> 
> Alexey and I have discussed it, and we recommend that the WG not adopt draft-seantek-text-markdown-use-cases at this time.  We would like the WG to focus on developing draft-ietf-appsawg-text-markdown with Sean until it's ready to go at least to WGLC, or preferably to the IESG, and then we can adopt draft-seantek-text-markdown-use-cases if there's still the energy and desire to publish it at that time.

Well, I object to not adopting it. Just one vote, but 1 > 0. :)

Nevertheless I agree that the main document be the priority. I am not sure what the feeling of the WG is, however, on the exemplary registrations that are in the use-cases document. There was that BCP (do not recall the number) about how an IANA registry should be filled in the same document. Note that the IANA registry is populated in the main text-markdown draft, but only with one entry: Gruber’s Original Markdown variant (syntax, whatever). Since I don’t have the BCP in front of me I’m not sure if that satisfies it.

> 
> If there are no objections to that call, we encourage the WG to reviewing the -03 version of the main markdown draft and check on the open questions Sean brought up today (see the meeting materials).  Or perhaps Sean could re-state what he sees as the open issues on this or another thread.

The open issues are mostly covered by the Thursday e-mail “text/markdown: Simplifying the syntax parameter and the draft”; archived at <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/kaSgQOOolkXUdmYKeh78npLAlXQ>. If we can get agreement on that (or at least, no objections), I can at least output a draft-04 and we can keep it moving.

Best regards,

Sean

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 19:02:59 -1000

On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Sean Leonard <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Nevertheless I agree that the main document be the priority. I am not sure
> what the feeling of the WG is, however, on the exemplary registrations that
> are in the use-cases document. There was that BCP (do not recall the
> number) about how an IANA registry should be filled in the same document.
> Note that the IANA registry is populated in the main text-markdown draft,
> but only with one entry: Gruber’s Original Markdown variant (syntax,
> whatever). Since I don’t have the BCP in front of me I’m not sure if that
> satisfies it.
>

The discussion in the room today seemed to be fine with the idea of having
the initial registration set in the second document despite what the BCP
says (Barry made the point and I saw some gentle nodding in the room, and
no objection).  So I think the layout you just described, with just the one
in the main document, will be fine.

> The open issues are mostly covered by the Thursday e-mail “text/markdown:
> Simplifying the syntax parameter and the draft”; archived at <
> http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/kaSgQOOolkXUdmYKeh78npLAlXQ>.
> If we can get agreement on that (or at least, no objections), I can at
> least output a draft-04 and we can keep it moving.
>

Have at it, please!

-MSK

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 08:38:33 -0800

On 11/10/2014 6:33 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> draft-seantek-text-markdown-use-cases at this time.  We would like the
> WG to focus on developing draft-ietf-appsawg-text-markdown with Sean
> until it's ready to go at least to WGLC, or preferably to the IESG, and
> then we can adopt draft-seantek-text-markdown-use-cases if there's still
> the energy and desire to publish it at that time.

Use cases can serve two different purposes.  I think the intent of the
use case document, here, could affect whether it should come before or
after the actual spec.  So I think we should be clear about that intent.

One purpose is to guide design of the solution.  The other is to explain
what has been designed, to those who might use it, specifically by
giving them likely scenarios to use it in.

If the current spec document is far enough along, in purpose and detail,
then I assume the use case document is for educating the mass of
potential adopters.

However from the discussions about markdown, I really can't tell how
settled design issues are.

So I'll reduce to a simple question:

     Could/Should having a use case document make it easier to resolve
disagreements about the choices in the text-markdown document?

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net