On 2019-10-27, Jaime Tarrasa <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Yes, that's correct. The original developer of the Python asciidoc implementation has moved on. Others spend some time maintaining the original implementation, but AFAICT it's not really under active development. Somebody is now trying to write a formal specification. Those people are from the asciidoctor project and don't work on the original implementation. I would guess they read the asciidoctor list more regularly than they do 'this' list (which is mostly about the original implementation). That's why I suggested that the asciidoctor list would probably be a better forum. > That could end in the worst scenery for a standard format: Two > implementations > competing to rule the standard. And obviously, never a third implementation. I've seen no evidence that anybody is "competing to rule the standard". > 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. Yes, everybody sees the problem. We're all aware of the divergence of the two implementations. That's why people are trying to write a spec. -- Grant -- 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/qp4hlt%244vft%241%40blaine.gmane.org.
