On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Michel Fortin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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:
<snip> > > 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? Steve _______________________________________________ Markdown-Discuss mailing list Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
