on the philosophical aspects of a specification
shoelzer at gmail.com
Wed Mar 5 08:28:04 EST 2008
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Michel Fortin
<michel.fortin at michelf.com> wrote:
> Le 2008-03-04 à 13:15, david parsons a écrit :
> > But what's the intent of ***hello*, sailor** ?
> > Should it produce
> > 1. <strong><em>hello</em>, sailor</strong>
> > 2. <strong>*hello*, sailor</strong>
> > 3. *<strong>hello*, sailor</strong>
> > 4. ***hello<em>, sailor<strong>
> > 5. ***hello*, sailor**
> > 6. <em><strong>hello</strong></em><strong>, sailor</strong>
> > 7. <em><strong>hello</em>, sailor</strong> (which makes baby XML
> > cry) ?
> I'd say 1:
> A better question is what to do with this:
> *hello **dear* boy**
For cases like these, I'd say that Markdown shouldn't do anything.
>From the official Markdown page:
> The overriding design goal for Markdown's formatting syntax is to make
> it as readable as possible. The idea is that a Markdown-formatted
> document should be publishable as-is, as plain text, without looking
> like it's been marked up with tags or formatting instructions. While
> Markdown's syntax has been influenced by several existing text-to-HTML
> filters, the single biggest source of inspiration for Markdown's syntax
> is the format of plain text email.
So, the question is: Would you ever see **mismatched *asterisks***
intentionally written in plain text email?
I don't think so, because it doesn't make intuitive sense. And if I
can't make sense of the plain text, why should Markdown define one
interpretation as being correct?
More information about the Markdown-Discuss