Markdown-discuss Digest, Vol 14, Issue 9
chris at assortedgeekery.com
Thu Dec 9 09:51:40 EST 2004
On Dec 9, 2004, at 12:23 AM, Lou Quillio wrote:
> To transform a man page into XHTML with Markdown, you'd probably
> want to wrap the literal passages in backticks (`) so they're
> transformed to inline <code> elements, and let your own CSS take
> over from there.
On Dec 9, 2004, at 1:01 AM, John Gruber wrote:
> A lot of times, especially with underscores, they're being used in a
> code context, so it might be appropriate to wrap them in code spans...
> ... blah blah `PTHREAD\_SCOPE\_SYSTEM` ...
Good points, both. I didn't want to treat the whole passage as a code
block--I was going to make it a blockquote, then set the formatting to
"pre" with CSS--but it *is* appropriate to treat those individual terms
as code spans. I can't honestly think of a situation where underscores
would be part of a word outside of a code context, so I guess the
syntax really is fine as-is.
On Dec. 9, 2004, at 1:42 AM, Aaron VonderHaar wrote:
> I'll concede that someone _might_ want to write
> un*fucking*be_liev_able, and the it would be nice not to be prevented
> from writing that. But ... I can only recall two or three times in my
> life that I ever actually have bolded or italicised part of a word.
> In contrast, I type things like $long_winded_value or
> MAGIC_DATE_CONSTANT_PART_FIVE typically several times a day.
That's exactly how I was thinking, but I think John's right.
Semantically, "$long_winded_value" and "MAGIC_DATE_CONSTANT_PART_FIVE"
should be wrapped in `<code>` tags anyway, and the backticks seem to
suppress Markdown formatting, so all's well :)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 2379 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/markdown-discuss/attachments/20041209/7de25c10/smime.bin
More information about the Markdown-discuss