php-markdown-extra-extended - my humble attempt at extending php-markdown

[Alan Hogan]

It seems to me that your syntax, compared to Maruku's attribute lists, is less powerful, less commonly implemented, and more ambiguous; and that its only upshot is looking better to your eyes.

Fair enough? Or am I missing something? 
Alan Hogan

http://blogic.com
contact at alanhogan.com


On Wednesday, July 13, 2011 at 6:11 PM, David Parsons wrote:


> 

> On Jul 13, 2011, at 1:12 PM, Alan Hogan wrote:

> 

> > 

> > On Wednesday, July 13, 2011 at 12:54 PM, David Parsons wrote:

> > 

> > > Adding classes & ids are kind of hideous. What I did with discount

> > > was to extend the []() syntax to allow class: and id: pseudo-classes

> > > (like [postoffice](class:caps) or version [2.1.0](id:v2.1.0) on spans

> 

> > I can’t say I am a fan of this syntax, simply because it uses the 

> > same exact syntax for hyperlinks as it does for attributes.

> 

>  Yes, that's by design.

> 

> > The only way to tell about a `mailto:` link and a `class:` attribute 

> > is by whitelisting either attributes or protocols (I'm guessing 

> > attributes, as protocols are more "unbounded" in quantity). But what 

> > about obscure attributes? Or `data-foo-bar` attributes? Would (are) 

> > they be supported in this syntax?

> 

>  Personally, I've not found much use for passing arbitrary 

> attributes

> into spans or divs, and, at least to the best of my knowledge, no user

> has ever asked for that capacity. So it's never been an issue. And

> even if it was, I worry about supporting the thing making markdown into

> an unreadable mess -- I chose pseudo-protocols for spans because it's a

> syntax we've already got, and it makes it no more messy.

> 

> 

> > More seriously, what if a new technology takes off that uses a 

> > protocol designated `id` or similar? Say, a standards-based personal 

> > identity URL, e.g. id:alanhogan? Then the two sets of meanings would 

> > overlap.

> 

>  But it hasn't. And if it does, there's certainly nothing stopping

> me from depreciating the pseudo-protocol in future releases of the code;

> the nice thing about syntax extensions is that they're understood to be

> somewhat experimental and may change to reflect changes in the 

> underlying

> standards.

> 

> > 

> > That said, the ability to apply attributes to spans is pretty cool. 

> > Naïvely, I would think a syntax like

> > 

> >  blah blah [postoffice]{: .caps}

> 

>  One advantage of using pseudo-protocols is that you can use them 

> for

> the traditional footnote-style link:

> 

>  [postoffice][caps]

> 

>  [caps]: class:caps 'ALL UPPER CASE, ALL THE TIME'

> 

>  You could, of course, subvert the (markdown extra?)-style 

> abbreviation

> syntax to do it silently:

> 

>  postoffice

> 

>  %[postoffice]: [postoffice](class:caps)

> 

>  (or %[postoffice]: [postoffice]{:.caps}, if squiggle-parens are 

> your thing)

> 

> 

>  -david parsons

> _______________________________________________

> Markdown-Discuss mailing list

> Markdown-Discuss at six.pairlist.net (mailto:Markdown-Discuss at six.pairlist.net)

> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/markdown-discuss/attachments/20110713/1030f817/attachment.html>