* Dr. Drang <drdr...@gmail.com> [2010-12-07 18:10]: > On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Aristotle Pagaltzis <pagalt...@gmx.de> wrote: > > There is no need to wedge any of this into Markdown itself. > > I'm not suggesting the purity of standard Markdown be sullied > by my barbarous addition.
Oh no. No ivory towers were erected in the making of my post. Using a separate filter is simply more flexible, and likely, more thorough. It will work regardless of whether the user wrote actual `<code>` tags explicitly or used Markdown’s indented paragraph or backtick syntax. It also reduces the amount of code that has to be written overall (since it does not need to be glued into Markdown specifically) – and every line of code less to maintain is always a win. (The best code is no code.) And such a highlighter can also be used independently of Markdown. > I made the suggestion because it solved a problem I had and > might also help the OP. I’ve post-processed Markdown output. Not for this particular purpose but it would be easy. Solved my problems too. :-) > Recall that the OP is using MultiMarkdown, which has more > wedged-in features than you can count. One more wouldn't even > be noticed. Now this I can’t argue with. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/> _______________________________________________ Markdown-Discuss mailing list Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
