Jaime, Thank you for being sensitive to my concern about the tone of the discourse. I'm happy to discuss your concerns in a civil manner.
Your point is well taken. I think I made it clear in my message that I, too, recognize the need for a specification and that I've already been preparing to do my part. But you're mischaracterizing it as something that can just be done over lunch, or yesterday. It's a lot more involved than that. And it's going to need time to happen. You can be sure it will be discussed publicly, implemented openly, and made available under an open license. As with all things in open source, we need trust. We're not unaware of what's going on. How this all works is that we listen to feedback, we discuss, and then individuals step up to act. And that doesn't happen overnight. I'm glad to hear you want to write an open source implementation. That's great. One of the key goals of a specification is to foster an ecosystem of implementations, so your commitment and contribution will be an important part of achieving it. Best, -Dan On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 5:14 AM Jaime Tarrasa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > El lunes, 10 de diciembre de 2018, 11:36:37 (UTC+1), Dan Allen escribió: >> >> First, I want to start off by saying I don't like your tone. Yelling at >> us to do something isn't going to make us do it. >> >> Ok. Reading the text I see I was a little too aggressive and rude. I > apologize. > > Nevertheless my points are valid, and reading the comments I see what is > the problem. > > You are messing two concepts:the software that implements the document > format and the document format. The software may be open-source, but the > document is not an open format document if there is no specification > anywhere. > > I had written an implementation that parses a few things I needed. I > wanted to implement the full specification and publish it as open-source, > so it would enlarge the ecosystem. But I can't do that, or at least I'm > going to, it if I have dig in a specification buried in the code. > > What I mean is: Discuss publicly the specification, write it down, and > then everybody can implement it. Let asciidoctor be the reference > implementation as Libreoffice is the current reference implementation of > OpenDocument format. I think what I say is sensible. That is how usually > software is written, I think. > > Asciidoc is not a piece of software, it is a document format. Come on, > write the specification down. The current status doesn't encourage to write > implementations. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "asciidoc" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/asciidoc. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Dan Allen | @mojavelinux | https://twitter.com/mojavelinux -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "asciidoc" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/asciidoc. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
