* Michel Fortin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-31 21:05]: > Le 30 juil. 2006 à 21:29, Allan Odgaard a écrit : > >Now try the same on these two lines of text: > > > > This `is raw [text`](#) > > > > This is a [`link](#) and more text` > > > >If you choose to replace links with an md5 first, then the > >result of converting the first line will be wrong, whereas if > >you choose to convert raw first, the second line will be > >wrong. > > What's wrong and right here? It could be argued that since it's > not defined in the syntax description whichever comes first > should be the rule and no priority should be given to one > syntax construct over another,
No, it’s pretty clear. A backtick starts a sequence in which each character is interpreted literally. I don’t see how there can be any question: within code spans, there is no markup. > but the fact is that it's still undefined and that John's > reference implementation prioritize code spans over links. It does the right thing according to the syntax definition. As it so happens, this case is easy to model with a proper parser. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/> _______________________________________________ Markdown-Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
