> > *hello **dear* boy** > > That's a very good question. Here's a counterquestion: what does > a human reader see in that text?
When I try to look at this with my normal-person eye, what I see here is incorrect markup, which I then want to leave it as is and move on. When I look at it with my formalistic left-parsing eye, I see "<em>hello **dear</em> boy**". When I look at it with my reg-exps in a loop eye, I see "*hello <strong>dear* boy</strong>". Either one of those is ok with me. Let's just pick one. Everything else is from the devil, I say. Please, let's keep it simple. So, the user will type in something like this and get "<em>hello **dear</em> boy**". Not much of a tradegy. They will say, oh, silly me, must have screwed something up. (They did!) Then they'll go and fix it. I am all for flexibility, but not to the point of trying to divine the meaning of ambiguous or ill-formed markup. I don't think it really matters what we output for cases like this. I think any rule would be ok, as long as it satisfies the following criteria: 1. It's _simple_ 2. It always produces valid XHTML (unless input has HTML tags) 3. It should produce appropriate HTML for "normal" markdown. My reg-exp eye says: "strong" before "em" (longer pattern first), starting from the right for each. I am pretty sure this rule satisfies 1, 2, and 3. Let's stop this non-sense and get back to defining a spec for the _normal_ markdown. - yuri -- http://sputnik.freewisdom.org/ _______________________________________________ Markdown-Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
