[rfc-i] Have we standardized on Pandoc style Markdown?

Carsten Bormann cabo at tzi.org
Mon Nov 30 12:54:57 PST 2015

On 30 November 2015 at 21:17:52, Phillip Hallam-Baker (phill at hallambaker.com) wrote:

Do we have a consensus on using Pandoc style markdown?
I have no idea who “we” is, but there are two elements to such a question:

* What general sets of markdown features beyond Gruber markdown do RFC authors use?  (Tables, Definition lists, Attribute lists…)

* How are the xml2rfc specific mechanisms addressed in markdown?

Pandoc does not answer the second question.  RFC 7328 has one answer to that, but I think Miek has been moving on from that.

kramdown-rfc2629 uses the common markdown extensions as used in the kramdown tool (and, where they differ, not the slightly less common ones in Pandoc). I have no idea how wikimedia’s markdown flavor enters this picture; I am not aware that that has much traction.

kramdown-rfc2629 also has its own way of the representing xml2rfc specific mechanisms, much of it in a YAML header that is used for metadata and literature references.

kramdown-rfc2629 has been around for half a decade now and hasn’t suffered incompatible changes yet; since documents often live a long time before becoming RFCs, I’m not particularly interested in wild experimentation here.

Grüße, Carsten

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20151130/a5e32801/attachment.html>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list