spelling with <g>?

[Michel Fortin]

Le 2008-02-20 à 1:19, Petite Abeille a écrit :


> On Feb 20, 2008, at 4:30 AM, Michel Fortin wrote:

>

>> Markdown specifically allows you to use HTML in the middle of your  

>> prose. <g> looks like an HTML tag, Markdown recognize it as such,  

>> and you get it as an HTML tag in the output.

>

> Hmmm... yes... but... <g> is not a HTML tag... shouldn't it be  

> escaped automatically much in the same way as < g > would?


Well, if you saw <g> in the middle of an HTML document you'd think of  
it as a tag, undefined and of of unknown semantics perhaps, but a tag  
anyway.

Should markdown only allow a certain list of HTML tags based on the  
HTML specification? I think it'd be inconsistent to have <a> and <b>  
give different results than <c> and <d>. Also note that some people do  
use tags which aren't specified in any standard -- to use browser- 
specific features for instance, or as markup for chained HTML  
preprocessors -- and that standards *do* changes over time. For all  
these reasons, I don't think whitelisting a specific set of tag names  
is a good idea.

Now, it's true that the &lt;g> solution doesn't looks too appealing. I  
think it'd be much better if you could write: \<g> when you need to  
have a litteral "tag". Another solution would be to use something like  
PHP Markdown's no-markup mode, where tags are plain and simply  
disallowed, with the disadvantage that it would make the text less  
"portable" between different Markdown implementations.


Michel Fortin
michel.fortin at michelf.com
http://michelf.com/