jacobolus at gmail.com
Mon Aug 27 23:33:55 EDT 2007
Michel Fortin wrote:
> I don't think syntax highlighting is an argument that should help decide
> what Markdown should do.
It's not, really. But you claimed that it's worse for “readers and
writers” and I was explaining why it's better for me, as a reader and
> To solve your problem, I suggest you have two colors: one for the so-
> called "valid" emphasis, the one Markdown will effectively convert to
> emphasis, another for "invalid" emphasis, for when the closing asterisk
> is missing. That should make authoring errors even more obvious.
The problem with this is that highlights your document incorrectly as
you type it, only being correct once you've finished typing. I find
such highlighting very distracting.
> Basically, I think what you're calling "invalid Markdown" is really what
> is left undefined by the current documentation.
Yes, that's right. IOW stuff that's intended to be markdown syntax, but
doesn't actually fit the spec, and so currently gets messed up in output.
> ...To me, it sounds like an excuse to output
> garbage for poorly-edited documents, which is not something I want to do
> with my parser.
No. The garbage output is the state of current markdown
implementations. My goal is to avoid it.
More information about the Markdown-Discuss