I'm who started this thread. I have read the comments and I will post an answer:
First, I will like to answer the commet that I'm very hostile. Well, probably I've been. I'm sorry. There are a few reason for this hostility. Well, more than reason, excuses. When I write, it is because I'm a little upset. Not the best mod to communicate with other people. English is not my mother language, so many times I choose the shortest way and too direct expressions. Although emoticons help a little, writing misses many nuances of a direct spoken talk. More than being hostile, I intended to incentive you, not just to write the specification, but to change you mindset to public specification is the first and man issue, implementations are another business. Another one writes that it is open source, so I can fork the project. Wrong. There is a concept error. Asciidoc.org and ascidoc3.org and asciidoctor are open source projects, but asciidoc is and open format, A Format. Or at least I thought it was.I think it should be, but it can't be if there isn't such format described in a document. Do you want me to write down the specification as I understand it? I'm not the best person. It would be easier and much less work for maintainers of the current implementations than for me. Nevertheless, Ok, I can do it. Not the best time in my life to start new project, but I will do it. But with some conditions. Current asciidoc implementators will post what's wrong what's right and help to fix things (and language I'm not a native English speaker). But if my work is going to be ignored and treated as an intruder, It would be a pathetic waste of my time. Other one writes that this list is for Python asciidoc and I should ask in asciidoctor list. Who is in charge of the standard? I mean, Who is the reference of who?. Asciidoc.org? Asciidoc3.org? Asciidoctor?. Do you, asciidoc[3].org and asciidoctor have a talk before implementing/interpreting something? I may me be wrong, but what I see now it is that we may have an original implementation of a markup language not clearly defined and a derivative work, asciidoctor, that studying the manual of the original implementation has implemented and extends the original and fuzzy markup language. That could end in the worst scenery for a standard format: Two implementations competing to rule the standard. And obviously, never a third implementation. Dan Allen says >There's a lot of nuance to deal with in the language and I want to make sure we give it proper discussion. Do you see what is the problem?. The question is how long have been those nuances there. How all those nuances have been solved so far without a reference specification: Each implementation took his way. >It could also run into some serious legal trouble That is being too paranoid, nobody is going after asciidoc. >> I'm afraid that it means that specification is not an issue for asciidoc/asciidoctor maintainers. >I have had several personal constraints that have prevented me from moving on this sooner. I mean that after January, when there was an announce that it will be posted in Eclips, I have seen no progress. Not a draft, not single post about the matter. That makes me think that you are doing nothing about. I can understand that you have your life and it is your time and your life may (and should) have other priorities. I didn't mean to flog you as is you were my slave. I just mean that, related to asciidoc, there is no other priority that writing the specification. So I think that you should drop any other task related to asciidoc. All the time you devote to asciidoc (let it be an hour a month or ten hours a week) should be devoted to work only in specification. As I have written, I could help to write a draft if you want to. I think the first step, before applying to Eclipse or any other red carpet tasks, should be that, you, asciidoctor and asciidoc[3].org maintaniners talk and agree about. If you can't because you are, to certain extend, competing, asciidoc format is already in deep troubles. Without a public specification, asciidoc.org and asciidoctor with run into troubles. In fact they are already in troubles. i.e. Eric Raymond wrote that the project looks stalled and nobody can it continue it without a specification. "There is not right heading or favorable wind if you don't know where you are sailing to". -- 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/4d3b302a-40ac-4e0f-afa6-fdfac93fd57b%40googlegroups.com.
