The text/markdown Media Type
RFC 7763

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.

Barry Leiba Yes

(Jari Arkko) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

Comment (2015-07-08 for -08)
No email
send info
1.2, last paragraph:

Is this document attempting to place normative requirements on existing markdown implementations? Or should the 2119 keywords in this section be more statements of fact (and use descriptive language?)

6.1.2, first paragraph, last sentence:
Does this refer to section 6.1.2, or 6.1 and children? If the latter, and if there is no expert reviewer, who is expected to perform those checks (automatically or otherwise?)

Editorial:

IDNits reports a few missing or unused references, please check.

There is at least one occurrence of a word inclosed in slashes like /so/.  I assume that's intended for emphasis--but whether it's for that or some other reason it would be good to explicitly mention it.

section 1.1, last paragraph: Does "author's intent" refer to the author of this draft, or of markdown?

Figure 1: The continuation characters and some markup, impinge on the border.

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

Comment (2015-07-06 for -08)
No email
send info
1.  From Nevil's OPS DIR feedback: 
> 2. The markdown Example (Section 5) is helpful, but it doesn't seem
>   to have an obvious end marker - it just runs on into section 6.
>   Does markdown have something like an end-of-file marker you could
>   use to make that obvious?
And answered by Alexey:
>
> Not really, it is a textual format with no special end marker.
>
> I suppose the whole example can be surrounded by some markers and a note added that they are not a part of the example?

could we use the <CODE BEGINS> and <CODE ENDS>?

2. "A companion document [MDMTUSES] provides additional Markdown background and philosophy."

There is more than that. See the draft-ietf-appsawg-text-markdown-use-cases abstract: "Background information, local storage strategies, and additional syntax registrations are supplied"

3. Editorial
OLD: [fOo]
NEW: [foo]

Alissa Cooper No Objection

Comment (2015-07-08 for -08)
No email
send info
I'm not making this a DISCUSS because I think I've raised a similar issue before (with this same AD and doc shepherd, no less, I think) and lost the argument, but I don't get why this document is informational. It specifies a parameter syntax for fragment identifiers. If one implementation follows the syntax specified here and another implementation uses some other syntax defined somewhere else, how is this spec helping the two implementations interoperate?

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2015-07-09 for -08)
No email
send info
- 1.1: Who says that there's only a 1-dimensional continuum:-)
And what's on the other end? You don't say.

- The 2119 terms in the para after Figure 1 are bogus, except
for the last SHOULD (on p5).

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Comment (2015-07-08 for -08)
No email
send info
Nevil Brownlee performed the opsdir review.

(Terry Manderson) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2015-07-08 for -08)
No email
send info
Cleared DISCUSS based on WG decision to separate.

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

Alvaro Retana No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection