Inline HTML legalities

Waylan Limberg waylan at
Wed Nov 30 10:55:30 EST 2011

On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Andy Bennett <andyjpb at> wrote:

> I'm writing a Markdown Parser in Scheme by porting bits of




> There seems to be a discrepancy between the "Markdown: Syntax" document

> and the implementation in _HashHTMLBlocks.

I suspect this post [1] by Gruber himself in the list archive will
shed some light on your conundrum. The issue has come up numerous
times since, but that is the latest response I could find by JG on the

The point is, when you find a conflict between the documentation and
the implementation - the documentation rules. However, when the
documentation is silent, most of us rely on the implementation as a

Personally, what I find helpful is the existing test suite. Some of
the examples in there shed light on the intended behavior. It doesn't
hurt to run the test suites from other implementations as well.

If you haven't already, you might want to run your test cases through
babelmark [2] and see what results you get. Sometimes when I can't
find an existing test and no specific documentation on an edge case, I
go with the most common behavior among implementations on babelmark.
Although, be aware that some of those implementations are a little


\X/ /-\ `/ |_ /-\ |\|
Waylan Limberg

More information about the Markdown-Discuss mailing list