Graeme,
We're glad to have your participation and input too!
As I mentioned to Philippe, we're really just getting started. There will be plenty of time to discuss all the technical aspects of the language once the specification project is underway.
> A friendly mark-up anchored to an industrial-strength document model is AsciiDoc's killer feature for me.
I'm with you on this point 100%.
> I'm interested in reducing the impedance mismatches between AsciiDoc and DocBook.
I agree, though I think it's more of a mismatch between AsciiDoc and the formal semantics of publishing in general. DocBook just happens to be one of the interchange formats. DITA is another. If something in AsciiDoc isn't mapping well to either of those, it's likely a corner was cut too much. We just need to make room for more elaboration without overburdening the language.
For example, the implicit header (and specifically the revision part) is overly restrictive really for no particular reason. Multiple entries could be allowed. It was just never defined that way. Now we'll have a process to define it.
> I'm eager to hear how outsiders can engage in the WG without burdening you further.
Please never feel like an outsider or a burden. While there are formal roles to keep things moving, if you have something to say about AsciiDoc, you're an insider. The mailinglists (and there will be more) are the simplest way to engage. If you want deeper involvement, we encourage you to participate in the projects (spec, TCK, implementation, etc) as they get going. You can up your level of participation (or back down) at any time. Everyone will have a chance to be heard, and the Eclipse Foundation will ensure everything happens in the open. We're in this together.
Best Regards,
-Dan
