spelling with <g>?

Michel Fortin michel.fortin at michelf.com
Wed Feb 20 07:17:44 EST 2008

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

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

More information about the Markdown-Discuss mailing list