Incorrect behaviour (Markdown 1.0b4)

[Craig Morgan]

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 ...

Cheers

Craig

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:
>>
>>     command\_reference\_guide.pdf
> 
> 
> ...or alternatively wrap it in <code> backticks like so:
> 
>     `command_reference_guide.pdf`
> 
> 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:
> 
>     `_em_phasis`
> 
> or this:
> 
>     `empha_sis_`
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> ?
> 


-- 
Craig

Craig Morgan