Talk:AsciiDoc

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Separation of program implementation and the markup language itself[edit]

Although the program name is AsciiDoc, and presumably the reference implementation for transforming AsciiDoc, it would be good to separate the markup language from the programs that implement it. So something like a section describing what the language is, and another for the programs available to implement it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allgood38 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Be bold and do it! The example section does a half-decent job of explaining the language itself. The history section could use some improvement regarding history, but has information on two implementations. --RainerBlome (talk) 08:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File extension?[edit]

Do asciidoc files usually have some specific file extension? Perhaps .asc or something like that, since some software (e.g. GitHub) seem to be able to identify asciidoc documents? —Kri (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The AsciiDoc FAQ says [1] says

"What is the preferred file name extension for AsciiDoc files? The .txt text file extension is preferred".

Most git documentation[2] is written in AsciiDoc[3] using a ".txt" extension.

On the other hand, many people recommend using ".asciidoc" or ".adoc" extension.[4]; [5]; [6]

What should we say in this article about the file extension? --DavidCary (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you have written here seems like a good start to me. :) —Kri (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More tools[edit]

Somebody should (properly) add docToolchain[7] in the list of tools Cdokolas (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]