Incorrect behaviour (Markdown 1.0b4)
craig.morgan at sun.com
Tue Mar 30 12:47:53 EST 2004
I actually had every intention of (and actually did) wrap it with
backticks, as like you I felt that 'semantically' it deserved the <code>
distinction. I just happened to continue typing with an intention to
return to it ... and forgot.
Anyway, sorry for the wrong call, I checked the 'source' at
daringfireball after sending and observed the comment there ...
Már Örlygsson wrote:
>> Craig Morgan:
>>> ---- Example input ----
>>> .... recovery procedure is detailed in the command_reference_guide.pdf,
> John Gruber:
>> Thus you'd need to write the above as:
> ...or alternatively wrap it in <code> backticks like so:
> Which is less annoying to read, and even maybe a little more
> semantically accurate.
> John, maybe you should make the parsing rules for `_emphasis_` a little
> restrictive than for `*emphasis*`, thus only allowing asterisks to
> create `em*pha*sis` within a word, but requiring the underscore variety
> to either begin or end outside of a word - like this:
> or this:
> Of course this would make the syntax rules for Markdown slightly more
> difficult to explain, but on the other hand it might eliminate most of
> the cases similar to Craig Moran's.
> Since Markdown seems to be geared towards technically inclined writers,
> it might make sense to make it easy for them to include filenames, which
> commonly contain loads of underscore characters for spaces.
More information about the Markdown-discuss