Hello Regarding Goffis comments:
> Content type is useful to know, as the name state, the type of a content. At least we agree on this, and that is the point of the proposal. To have a means to annotate what the content is. > But in the case of rich text in a messaging app, we need to know in advance > which > kind of content we can accept, and to be able to interpret it, this need a > well-known restricted choice, and a well specified syntax. If you don't have a > restricted choice, you are never sure to be able to interpret rich content. This is besides the point. One thing is to annotate, another is to agree on what options could or should be used. But such things can evolve over time. The proposal does not assume to suggest Markdown should be used. It's only used as an example. Also, we could append the suggestion with a means to declare what types are supported by clients, so they can agree on what to use. > You have obviously not read any of the previous message about it so I invite > you to do so. This has nothing to do with my "personal opinion" (I have > nothing against Markdown and I use it myself), this is about the right thing > to do with a specification to generate rich text which can be transmitted on > the wire and rendered in a reproductible way. > > So I'll repeat myself one more time. > > Markdown is a terrible choice because: Yes I have. "Terrible" is not an objective word, and you're obviously not able to see the pros, only the cons (at least, that is what is seen in your mail) of Markdown. You only declare what you see as negative aspects. You're so against this particular technology, so you can't see that the proposal is not actually about Markdown, but about annotating. If you're against Markdown, nobody will force you do use it. The proposal is about annotating content by those that have a need to use different content types (representations) that what is currently presented as options in available XEPs. Now, sufficient interest exists to have caused two proposals in this area. The need is there. If you like Markdown or not is not relevant, since these proposals do not use Markdown for more than as examples. Furthermore, the use of Markdown in clients, social networks, discussion boards, content managment systems, etc., also show that markdown is very much liked by many (but not all). It is often even a requirement. The question remains: Do implementors who want to use Markdown have to find another forum than the XSF for defining extenions to annotate its content, or can the XSF cater to the needs of such developers? Nobody has asked the XSF to recommend Markdown as a format for interchange. The best format can be derived over time through competition (which is the normal way of settling disputes of this kind). Having said this, the proposals have some differences. In the first proposal, it's possible to include multiple different types of contents in the same message, all to increase interoperability. It is possible to send the same message using different content types, and allow the receiver to select which best fits its capabilities. Best regards, Peter Waher
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
