Michel Fortin wrote:
But that does not mean it's the right thing to do. Does `<>` looks
like a tag? I suppose it's debatable. To me it looks more like French
quotes.
My suggestion is just use «», and we can avoid this problem altogether. :)
-Jacob
___
Le 13 sept. 2006 à 13:57, John Gruber a écrit :
This is perhaps a contrived example, but if someone put this in a
Markdown document:
<>
they might reasonably expect the output to be:
not:
<>
Except that Markdown currently converts that to:
<>
which mak
Fletcher T. Penney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 9/13/06 at 6:29 AM:
> Perhaps I am ignoring something obvious - but when does `<<` ever
> occur in XHTML? Shouldn't it be a safe assumption that Markdown
> should convert any string of multiple `<`'s in a row into `<`'s?
This is perhaps a contr
Le 13 sept. 2006 à 6:29, Fletcher T. Penney a écrit :
Perhaps I am ignoring something obvious - but when does `<<` ever
occur in XHTML?
Shouldn't it be a safe assumption that Markdown should convert any
string of multiple `<`'s in a row into `<`'s?
`<<` doesn't occur in valid HTML or XHTML.
* Michel Fortin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-09-13 04:20]:
> (Assuming you meant ``, or ``.)
Yes, that’s what I meant.
* John Gruber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-09-13 06:35]:
> Yeah, either way you're "escaping" it, and `\<` is easier and
> prettier than `<`.
No doubt. Just saying it’s alr
On Sep 13, 2006, at 12:28 AM, John Gruber wrote:
Michel Fortin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 9/11/06 at 6:39 PM:
Your example illustrate the problem quite well, but is it really a
bug? How can Markdown tell isn't really a tag? What if you
had <>? In fact, Markdown treat as if it was a
tag an
