what this has to do with markdown

[David Chambers]

thank you for taking the time to share these thoughts, bowerbird. much
food for thought.


On 7 July 2013 20:00, Sherwood Botsford <sgbotsford at gmail.com> wrote:


> Bowerbird, after this epistle, I promise to read you more thoroughly.

>  Nicely put.

>

>

>

> Respectfully,

>

> Sherwood of Sherwood's Forests

>

> Sherwood Botsford

> Sherwood's Forests --  http://Sherwoods-Forests.com

> 780-848-2548

> 50042 Range Rd 31

> Warburg, Alberta T0C 2T0

>

>

>

> On 7 July 2013 20:21, bowerbird <bowerbird at aol.com> wrote:

>

>> first, i'm sorry for the expletive in your in-box.  really.

>>

>> i also apologize for the smell from those dead skunks.

>>

>> ***

>>

>> as to "what this has to do with markdown", it's simple.

>>

>> if i remember correctly -- i might not, but who cares? --

>> "fan_f*ck*ng_tastic" was the word gruber used to justify

>> his choice that his version of markdown would recognize

>> intraword italics.  so that's why _i_ used that one as well.

>>

>> now, the reason i followed it up with my reference to the

>> dead-skunk problem is because it's almost perfect as a

>> demonstration of the full range of problems these days...

>>

>> a person comes in and says, "hey, i noticed this glitch".

>>

>> somebody else says "here's a workaround you can use."

>>

>> which -- first -- ignores the fact that it's after-the-fact.

>>

>> but, in this particular case, the suggestion was actually

>> better than most.  to remind you, the workaround was to

>> surround filename_withanunderbar.txt with `backticks`,

>> which marks it as `code`, and thus short-circuits italics.

>>

>> because, as the suggester pointed out, it is the case that

>> you probably _want_ filenames to be marked as `code`,

>> so they will display in a different typeface, and stand out.

>>

>> the problem with that tactic, however, is that it does not

>> address the situation where you would want the word to

>> be rendered with the same typeface as surrounding text.

>> you wouldn't want "fan_f*ck*ng_tastic" marked as code.

>>

>> so...  sticking with the problem in regard to filenames...

>>

>> another workaround would be to backslash/escape the

>> underbar in the filename, which will also nix the italics,

>> but that presents a different problem, which is that now

>> we've gummed up the plain-text version of the filename

>> with an unwanted backslash, with unknown side-effects.

>> (since you just know somebody is going to end up using

>> that now-improper filename, and they will suffer for it.)

>>

>> that same type of problem would likely manifest with the

>> "just use raw .html" workaround, even if you can find the

>> way to concoct that.  (it hurts my brain to think about it;

>> i'm using light-markup so i'm not forced to do raw html.)

>>

>> the fact is, we really want to leave a filename untouched.

>> but we also don't want its underbars to be italic triggers.

>>

>> and remember that when an underbar is misrecognized

>> as an italic-trigger, it's dropped from .html output, so

>> we now have _another_ wrong version of that filename,

>> in addition to the difficult problem of the runaway italics.

>>

>> and, just to remind y'all that this is even _more_ thorny,

>> this underbar problem also happens regularly with urls.

>>

>> (there are other instances too, but i do not intend to

>> share all of the results from my hard-fought research;

>> since url's have the problem, it is significant enough.)

>>

>> this is not a thing we can casually sweep under the rug.

>>

>> which is why some markdown script-writers have just

>> decided that they will _disallow_ intraword underbars.

>>

>> and, in defense of that decision, it is the absolute truth

>> that browsers make a sad tragedy with intraword italics.

>> go look at some, take a hard look, and you _will_ see it:

>> the italic characters either slant into the upright ones, or

>> lean far too far away from them. either side, it's _awful_.

>>

>> so yes, many markdown scripters do an outright ban...

>>

>> which is fine if you are god, and you make the decisions.

>>

>> but if you are beholden to users, it might not be so good.

>>

>> and if you consider yourself to be a _servant_of_writers_,

>> then you really need to do a bit of research (or lots of it)

>> to discern if writers actually do ever use intraword italics.

>>

>> that was what i did, as i was developing my light-markup.

>>

>> so i can tell you that, yes, indeed, writers _do_ use them.

>>

>> not a lot, of course, but they're not that infrequent either,

>> and it is a sizable percentage of writers that do use them.

>>

>> so that's probably why about _half_ of the implementations

>> ban 'em, and half _allow_ them.  it's split down the middle.

>>

>> so if you really want to know if it's acceptable to ban them,

>> my advice would be "no".

>>

>> ***

>>

>> now, let's go back and look what the original poster said.

>>

>> >   Why not to ignore all "_"

>> >   which are not followed or preceded

>> >   either by a whitespace or by a newline?

>>

>> just for the record, a newline _is_ whitespace, so we can

>> strike the "or by a newline" phrase; just use "whitespace".

>>

>> as a first pass in thinking about that issue, that's not bad.

>> i'd say it's the "solution" most people would come up with.

>>

>> i wouldn't even be surprised if some implementations do

>> indeed use exactly that rule to govern their conversions...

>>

>> but if you actually go look at where italics markup is used,

>> you'll find many people put italics _inside_ any punctuation.

>> (most typically, you can find this with double-quote marks,

>> but any terminal-punctuation will present the same issue.)

>>

>> now i wouldn't recommend that, because -- as i just said --

>> browsers do a lousy job when italics are next to un-italics,

>> and that's true for punctuation as much as other characters.

>>

>> but the fact remains that a lot of people use italics like that,

>> so if you use "whitespace" as the rule, you'll screw them up.

>>

>> (of course, by putting your underbars _outside_ quotemarks,

>> you can screw up some conversion routines for curly-quotes,

>> because _they_ are using whitespace to make their decisions;

>> but that's why you need to decide things in a systematic way.)

>>

>> again, back to the original poster:

>>

>> >   It would be nice to make

>> >   a part of the official Markdown definition

>> >   then all implementation will display this in the same way.

>>

>> as gruber put it, years ago and very recently, people _say_

>> they wanna have an "official" version of markdown -- but

>> what they _mean_ is that they want _their_ pet desires to

>> receive his stamp of approval as "the official markdown".

>>

>> but if gruber _were_ to make an "official version", he says

>> that it would make those people very unhappy, because he

>> will instantiate _his_ pet desires as the canonical standard.

>>

>> so, let me say to the original poster, gruber _did_ make the

>> closest thing to an official version, and it specifically _allows_

>> intraword italics.  so you wouldn't get what you want anyway.

>>

>> which is not to say that other implementations, which do it

>> _differently_ are "wrong", because gruber likes it "flexible".

>>

>> in other words, he doesn't _want_ all implementations to

>> "display in the same way".  which could be well and good,

>> if not for all these dead skunks in the middle of the road.

>>

>> you can call it "flexiblity", or you can call it "inconsistencies".

>>

>> whether you, or i, or anyone else for that matter, considers

>> all this to be "right" or "wrong" is entirely beside the point...

>>

>> since gruber ain't gonna change his ways, and neither are

>> the many developers, whose stubborn insistence has also

>> been equally-well documented, there is no resolution here.

>>

>> which is why most people have stopped thinking long ago.

>>

>> ***

>>

>> and _that_, my friends, is another one of the problems here.

>>

>> because that refusal to do any more thinking on the matters

>> -- the disinclination to remove dead skunks from the road --

>> means that the situation really has become totally hopeless.

>>

>> as fletcher put it, in his reply to the original poster:

>>

>> >   Stick around.  You'll learn.   ;)

>>

>> hey, at least he put a winkey-smiley after it...   ;+)

>>

>> ***

>>

>> so, just to do a follow-through as a for-example for you,

>> let me run you through the thinking that i did when i was

>> working about the aspects of this intraword italics issue.

>>

>> one part, which i mentioned above, was to survey books

>> -- as my system focuses on books -- to see if authors

>> actually use intraword italics.  and they occasionally do.

>>

>> on the other hand, more research revealed quite readily

>> that there was a problem with both filenames and urls,

>> as they often contain underbars.  (and, so i note it, yes,

>> a url _is_ a filename, but sometimes it's a symbolic one

>> -- in the sense that the "file" does not actually exist --

>> so both for purposes of clarity and to remind us of the

>> full range of the problem, i mention them specifically.)

>>

>> so, both use-cases do exist.  we have intraword italics,

>> and intraword underbars that must be taken as literals.

>>

>> thus, we need a way to differentiate them.

>>

>> the key here, to which i have already given one big hint,

>> is that the literal-underbars occur in specific situations,

>> namely for filenames and urls.  intraword italics, on the

>> other hand, occur (by definition) in the middle of words.

>>

>> so when my system encounters an underbar in a string,

>> it decides whether the string is a filename/url or a word.

>> in the former, the underbar is seen as a literal character;

>> in the latter, the underbar is considered an italic trigger.

>>

>> it's relatively simple to determine if something is a url;

>> e.g., an "http" or a "www" or a ".com" is a dead giveway.

>> and an internal period is a good indicator of a filename,

>> especially if it's followed by a known filename extension.

>>

>> likewise, it's relatively easy to tell if something is a word,

>> or is not, once you have removed the underbars inside it.

>> if it's in the dictionary, or if it's repeated (sans underbars)

>> elsewhere in the document, odds are that the underbars

>> in this version of the string are intended as italic triggers.

>>

>> so, in my testing, this decision-rule has been pretty solid.

>>

>> it's not something that i would recommend for markdown,

>> because of factors i will discuss later, but it works for me.

>>

>> and, more to the point i'm trying to make here, it's what

>> can happen if you really try hard to resolve a discrepancy,

>> rather than simply just throwing your hands up in the air.

>> (like you just don't care. hu-hum, hu-hum, baby-cakes.)

>>

>> i mean, i understand the paralysis that _will_ result when

>> you're mired in a standoff situation, like this has become,

>> but i think you markdown developers need to fight that.

>> instead, you've all let yourself become complacent about

>> the edge-cases and inconsistencies that dog the format.

>>

>> a little elbow-grease might go a long way, is what i say.

>>

>> but you're going to have to apply it.  i had to work a lot

>> to come to the easy understanding of intraword italics

>> that i have just imparted to you.  you need to work too.

>>

>> and, for me, the italics situation was actually less sticky

>> than the asterisk problem, because asterisk-overload is

>> much, much worse.  asterisks -- which i use for *bold*

>> (and i didn't take the easy way out and require two) --

>> _also_ represent bullets in unordered lists, _and_ occur

>> in equations where they are the sign for multiplication.

>> writing the routines to sort through all that was a pain.

>>

>> further, curly-quote conversion isn't as easy as it seems.

>> a single round of thinking (like microsoft did) will create

>> a converter that makes some very embarassing mistakes.

>>

>> even a couple more rounds of thinking might not give

>> you a routine that correctly gives straight-quotes in the

>> cases where the marks are referring to feet and inches,

>> or the minutes-and-seconds part of lattitude/longitude.

>>

>> again, this is the kind of intense thinking you have to do

>> if you wanna sort through these types of difficulties, but

>> nobody here that i can see is doing much thinking at all.

>> and for sure you don't share any thinking you are doing,

>> or bounce ideas off of each other in a collaborative way.

>>

>> and that's really sad.

>>

>> ***

>>

>> so, anyway, this is what i'd recommend for markdown,

>> as your general solution to the underbar/italic problem.

>>

>> (and, yes, i am chuckling as i write this, because i know

>> darn well that nobody even wants "a general solution",

>> and even though some implementations already do it,

>> the rest -- including gruber -- will never, ever, follow,

>> so any such proposal is an exercise in mere folly, but...)

>>

>> anyway, here it is:

>>

>> ban intraword italics, outright, with full notice, _but_

>> make it clear that the workaround is to use raw .html

>> to obtain the necessary italics for any intraword needs.

>>

>> (and if you're curious why i don't use this in my system,

>> the reason is because i do not permit raw .html at all.)

>>

>> ***

>>

>> and, finally, hey, let's put this all into perspective, ok?

>>

>> the kind of standoff we have here is relatively minor.

>> and the problems we see border on the most trivial...

>>

>> we see the same type of stubborness at a larger level

>> as the big corporations continue lobbying for d.r.m.,

>> and the big tech companies up their lock-in tactics.

>>

>> and unlike here, in little old markdown land, where

>> there is no money to be made one way or the other,

>> the dollars from d.r.m. and lock-in could be _huge_.

>> so those companies are gonna be firm, intransigent,

>> and persistent in their stubbornness and their greed.

>>

>> and, on a bigger level still, look at global warming,

>> and the way that we are rapidly polluting our planet.

>>

>> again, the standoff there is so much more dangerous,

>> as the money is _staggering_, so don't even bother to

>> wonder if any of the big corporations will ever change.

>>

>> and once humans go extinct, it will not really matter if,

>> once upon a time, somewhere along the line, someone

>> had their italics messed up because of a stray underbar.

>>

>> so, just so you know, if it was _just_ markdown that this

>> was relevant to, i probably wouldn't care nearly so much.

>>

>> but the problem of stubborn standoffs is much bigger,

>> and applies to arenas far larger than this little molehill,

>> causing problems worse than the smell of dead skunks,

>> and _that_ is why i care, and why i choose to speak up...

>>

>> now i will ask you: why do you sit and suffer in silence?

>>

>> -bowerbird

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> Markdown-Discuss mailing list

>> Markdown-Discuss at six.pairlist.net

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

>>

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> Markdown-Discuss mailing list

> 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/20130707/56283d21/attachment-0001.html>