It would be nice to say that descriptions can be in Markdown format, allowing embedded links into human-readable descriptions. I guess it puts a burden on anyone rendering it though to run it through markdown, which I'd like to do, but perhaps not everyone. Any thoughts?
Good thought - and I would incline to saying that by default processors should treat this as markdown (and those that treat it as plain text can do so - and you'll just get some formatting). However, this blithe statement may need some examination.
Yeah, I think it's probably fine - Markdown is designed to be human-readable, after all.
+1 Markdown in description
Also +1 for specifying markdown. I'd suggest leaving the type of markdown allowed as unspecified. Hopefully the CommonMark standard will have fully materialized before anyone needs this nailed down.
Ditto, +1 markdown or plain text option for description.
I guess my one concern is increased burden for consumers. Should consumers automatically assume that the description is markdown or do we need to an option to indicate it
I also wonder about explicitly introducing a "readme" field in datapackage.json - i use this a lot on http://data.okfn.org
I think an option for either case would be good. If there is a flag, then assume if the flag is missing then it is simple text, if the flag exists then check it for format type. What if all descriptions using markdown were prefixed with or something similar in a JSON way.
I am also encouraging the use of README in MD formats that are listed in the datapackage.json document.
OK, i think we have consensus here on people assuming the description field is in markdown. We'll look to mention this in next iteration of the spec.
@rgrp @danfowler an easy thing to introduce. @danfowler I suggest you make a PR.
[dp][s]: description field is markdown formatted - fixes #152.