On 2015-01-01 16:08, Kevin Veroneau wrote:
On December 31, 2014 10:43:40 AM MST, Nick Matavka <n.theodore.matavka.files@gmail.com> wrote:
As regards format, please note that this is a MARKDOWN formatted
resource.
I will not consider re-flowing the text in any other format, unless
the Markdown format continues to be authoritative. First of all,
RFCs are in modified Markdown and I have already started the RFC
process with the international people.
[...]
Markdown for the win! See, my idea of preferring Markdown in my
Gopher client update was a perfect choice. Considering RFCs are also
written in a similar syntax. Markdown is just so easy to read
regardless if it's rendered as rich text or plain text. I actually
never knew RFC documents were markdown compatible. Learn something
new everyday.
I'd say it's most likely the other way around, Markdown is (similar to)
RFC syntax.
As far as I know, RFCs are written in plain text ASCII (or perhaps *roff
is/was used in some stage). Markdown is just close to plain text, but I
don't think it makes sense to label things that have existed since 1969
as Markdown (which appeared in 2004, according to wikipedia).