> I'm not sure the indentation feature is so useful. After all, you can use > the old syntax if you want indentation. What do you think?
I'd prefer to keep it simple and leave out the indentation feature. > I'm not against option 2, but I don't see it as a replacement to option 1 > (for the reasons enumerated below). > > It also has more potential of breaking existing documents. Imagine if > someone put multiple paragraphs and headers in a big list item, and one > header is preceded by two blank lines to make it stand out more. The > content of that list item would become a code block. Not pretty. Good point. > We could allow this only between list items: add an additional blank line > to break out of the current list; but not working for code blocks. The > worse that could happen to existing documents then is that some lists could > be broken into separate consecutive lists; that's much less damaging than > turning some list item's content into a code block. This would complicate parsing quite a bit. At this point I'm inclined to keep changes as simple as possible, and just to implement option (1) without any version of (2). On the issue of ~~~ vs ===, you give two reasons for preferring ~~~: (a) Because ~~~ is not used for Setext headers, we would not need to require a blank line before a code block. You could have a code block ~~~ like this ~~~ which would not be possible with ===. (b) Because === already has a use in markdown, using it to mark off unindented code blocks might confuse people and parsers who aren't familiar with the new syntax. Non-extended markdown parsers would parse these code blocks as a regular paragraph followed by a header. On (a): Partly because ~ already has a use in pandoc for inline text formatting (~~strikeout~~ and ~subscript~), and partly because it makes parsing easier, I'd be in favor of requiring blank lines before and after the new-style code blocks. On (b): Non-extended markdown parsers will make a mess of the new code blocks with either syntax, since they won't know to interpret the text between ~~~ as verbatim text. I don't see a big advantage here for the ~~~ syntax. Also, as I noted, in pandoc ~s are already used to indicate ~~strikeout text~~ and ~subscripts~. I can see that the === syntax might cause problems with existing syntax highlighters, though. Perhaps an alternative would be to use ++++s instead of ~~~~s. Advantages: Not currently used for anything in markdown or extensions, vertically centered on the line in most fonts. Disadvantage: ugly? I'd be interested in hearing what others think. Although I have a preference for ===, I'd be willing to go with ~~~ just to prevent a proliferation of different syntax extensions. One more thought. I think it would be useful to allow something like this: ~~~(haskell)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ inlineNote = try $ do failIfStrict char '^' contents <- inlinesInBalanced "[" "]" return $ Note [Para contents] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If the string of ~~~~s that introduces the code block contains a parenthesized string, this would be treated as the "class" attribute of the code block. This would make it possible to postprocess the output with a syntax highlighter, or use a javascript syntax highlighter. John _______________________________________________ Markdown-Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
