> Jaime wrote: > I'm afraid that it means that specification is not an issue for asciidoc/asciidoctor maintainers.
That is not true, and I can speak for myself better than you can. It's also very hostile, and I don't appreciate that. I have had several personal constraints that have prevented me from moving on this sooner. I'm not going to apologize for that because it's life. I have dealt with those constraints and I am continuing to move forward on my commitment to this. > I don't think it is such a daunting task. You don't have to submit it to ISO, just a clear webpage like markua. You, programmers, probably have a draft of what attributes use, etc. just ordering, cleaning it up a little and uploading to a webpage. I understand where you're coming from, but the reality is that its simply naive. If a spec is done this way, it will be meaningless. It could also run into some serious legal trouble (hence why we need an entity like Eclipse to help with that). We want the spec to mean something. We NEED it to mean something. And, therefore, our plan is to do it right. There are also a lot of nuance to deal with in the language and I want to make sure we give those proper discuss. I'm not just going to rubber stamp a spec based on how the implementations work, because that will either set us back or cause the language to be stuck in the past. I'm going to defer all other replies until next week because I have work I have to finish this week. -Dan -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/asciidoc/CAKeHnO4JP9u88HZuX%2BTfsTcuJwO6J3s3O7anNB5puRRsBaBweA%40mail.gmail.com.
