asterisks as bold or italic?
Ben Williams
benw at plasticboy.com
Mon Mar 22 10:43:57 EST 2004
Jason Clark wrote:
> I think consistancy is much more important than configurability here.
> After all, anyone who really, _really_ cares is free to change the
> source.
And in that spirit, here's a tiny patch to Markdown.pl that changes
*single asterisks* to <strong> instead of <em>. Everything else remains
the same for backwards compatibility.
My motivation is to match the behavior of Mozilla Mail and Thunderbird
(although they treat underscores as underline). I also think the single
asterisks better match Markup's design goals of being more readable,
more easy to type, and looking less like markup.
I wanted to make /slashes/ do emphasis as well but I couldn't figure out
how to do that without ending up with slashes in end tags encoded to
<em> or </em>. Maybe the regexp wizards can figure that one out.
--
Ben
http://plasticboy.com/
-------------- next part --------------
--- Markdown.orig.pl 2004-03-22 09:20:29.827032100 -0500
+++ Markdown.pl 2004-03-22 09:52:10.371660500 -0500
@@ -879,9 +879,9 @@
my $text = shift;
# <strong> must go first:
- $text =~ s{ (\*\*|__) (?=\S) (.+?) (?<=\S) \1 }{<strong>$2</strong>}gsx;
+ $text =~ s{ (\*\*|\*|__) (?=\S) (.+?) (?<=\S) \1 }{<strong>$2</strong>}gsx;
# Then <em>:
- $text =~ s{ (\*|_) (?=\S) (.+?) (?<=\S) \1 }{<em>$2</em>}gsx;
+ $text =~ s{ (_) (?=\S) (.+?) (?<=\S) \1 }{<em>$2</em>}gsx;
return $text;
}
More information about the Markdown-discuss
mailing list