Universal syntax for Markdown

[David Chambers]

Waylan Limberg <waylan at gmail.com> wrote:

Just an FYI, but the section separator that Alan mentioned is actually part

> of YAML. In fact, IIRC without it the YAML parser would consider it an

> invalid document. I guess the point is that what marks the meta-data could

> be dependent on what format is used for meta-data. That might be hard to

> define in a Markdown spec if we leave it open for any meta-data format.



The idea I had in mind is that if Markdown were to define a syntax for a
metadata section, Markdown parsers could ignore such sections. That way, a
given document with metadata wouldn't *require* a particular preprocessor in
order to render sensibly.

Sherwood Botsford <sgbotsford at gmail.com> wrote:

I would propose that all versions of MD support three flags -quirks and

>  -standard -strict.



Excellent. I don't think that all versions would need to support all three –
a new implementation needn't provide a "quirks mode", for example.

I suggest tweaking the flags slightly:

*--quirks*
Backwards-compatibility mode for the implementation in question. In quirks
mode, two implementations may give different output for a given input.

*--standard*
Full support for all current language features as defined by the
then-current specification. For any given input, every implementation should
produce the same output, although the output may differ from that produced
in quirks mode.

*--quirks --extensions ext1 ext2 … extN*
Backwards-compatibility mode plus backwards-compatible versions of the
required extensions.

*--standard --extensions ext1 ext2 ... extN*
Full support for all current language features as defined by the
then-current specification, plus extensions that conform to the syntax which
is to be included in the spec at some point in the future. Making language
extensions opt-in initially would make it possible to test a language
extension in the wild before its behaviour is set in stone.

For example, one might translate a particular document using --standard
--extensions footnotes until, at some point in the future, footnotes become
part of the specification. One could then switch to simply using --standard.

David


On 16 August 2011 08:50, Waylan Limberg <waylan at gmail.com> wrote:


> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 1:07 AM, David Chambers

> <david.chambers.05 at gmail.com> wrote:

> > First let me say that this thread has me excited. There's a great deal of

> > constructive discussion, and a surprising number of "I agree" replies.

> > I'll add my two cents on the particulars that have been discussed herein.

> > Metadata

> > Just about every Markdown document I create includes metadata (for date,

> > time, and time zone, and sometimes tags). I couldn't live without it, but

> as

> > a user it doesn't matter to me whether these data are processed by the

> > Markdown library itself or, as Waylan suggested, by "a separate […]

> library

> > (like YAML) which reads and removes the metadata".

> > I think Alan's suggestion that Markdown should define syntax for a

> metadata

> > section (while ignoring the contents of such sections) is an excellent

> one.

>

> Just an FYI, but the section separator that Alan mentioned is actually

> part of YAML. In fact, IIRC without it the YAML parser would consider

> it an invalid document. I guess the point is that what marks the

> meta-data could be dependent on what format is used for meta-data.

> That might be hard to define in a Markdown spec if we leave it open

> for any meta-data format.

>

> > Definition lists

> > The fact that including more than one definition for a given term is an

> > uncommon requirement should not preclude such use cases from being

> > accommodated. Rather than thinking in terms of the "rendered" content (be

> it

> > HTML, PDF, or some other format) we should first think in terms of what

> our

> > content means and how best to express that meaning in a structured

> fashion.

> > Definition lists are a good case in point. What is a definition? Text

> that

> > explains the meaning of or describes some thing. There therefore exists

> some

> > relationship between the definition and the thing it defines. Also, there

> > may be several ways to describe one thing. What is the relationship

> between

> > various definitions for a particular thing? Are they equally important?

> Are

> > they sequential? Can they be grouped in some way? Can one description

> apply

> > to more than one thing?

>

> Valid questions. Interestingly, the HTML5 spec answers some of this.

> In fact, the HTML5 spec [1] calls `<dl>` a "description list" which

> expands beyond definitions. It states: "Name-value groups may be terms

> and definitions, metadata topics and values, questions and answers, or

> any other groups of name-value data." And then proceeds to provide

> examples, one of which specifically provides two terms for a value. I

> don't see any reason why a markdown variant wouldn't support all the

> same use cases.

>

> [1]: http://developers.whatwg.org/grouping-content.html#the-dl-element

>

> --

> ----

> \X/ /-\ `/ |_ /-\ |\|

> Waylan Limberg

> _______________________________________________

> Markdown-Discuss mailing list

> Markdown-Discuss at six.pairlist.net

> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/markdown-discuss/attachments/20110816/d7687460/attachment.html>