underscore and italic policy
srjoseph at hawaii.edu
Fri Jul 7 22:00:14 EDT 2006
Thanks for your input. Good point. Making them inline code is a good
suggestion. At the moment we're using ruby BlueCloth implementation of
Markdown which has a problem with backtick support (single backticks
cause an error, so I'm filtering them out at present), but that is
besides the point.
You are right that a faq entry should alert users to this issue, but for
many users I think we can rely on them not reading the faq.
Personally I would like to avoid having to type the backticks in because
I can't think of any situation where I would actually want embedded
italics, but then I can also see that if embedded bold works, it makes
sense to have consistent functionality for italics.
Hmm. The other issue for me is that we include auto_linking in our
system, on top of markdown, and thus underscores in urls get italicized
and break the auto_linked urls, but again that's an issue peculiar to
us, although I'm not sure why markdown doesn't just autolink urls, since
I can't think of many situations where I wouldn't want a url auto_linked
- I guess if it was a dummy link or something. And what if I want the
link text to be the link title. Right now I have to do:
which is a bit of a pain.
Just thinking out loud ...
Waylan Limberg wrote:
> I don't have anything to add to the italics policy, but when using
> file names and table names within a body of text, wouldn't they be
> considered inline code? In my experience that is usually how
> documentation is formatted. That being the case, one would do:
> which, IMHO makes the italics policy irrelevant in this case. True,
> you may have users who fail to use the backticks to start with, but
> the problem is easy to spot and a simple addition to your FAQ page
> should cover those issues.
> : http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax#code
More information about the Markdown-Discuss