On Feb 18, 2009, at 12:19 PM, Waylan Limberg wrote:
Comments? Has this ship already sailed?
You make a convincing argument. And I must admit your proposal is very
nice to look at/read/write.
Thank you.
But if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
The current implementation was set before I came along some few years
ago, and I have never searched through the archives to see how it came
about or why. But, people have been using it for this long without
issue and there are already numerous existing documents out there that
use it, so I see no reason to change it. In fact that last point
(numerous existing documents) seems to be the de-facto response to any
suggested changes on this list - and understandably so. No doubt
that's why you suggested leaving the existing syntax in place, but
then we would have two ways to define deflists. What happens when an
author mixes the two? Ack! Yeah, this ship has sailed IMO.
I don't think it's a problem to have two different kinds of bullets
for definition list items; after all, you can already use +, -, or *
for unordered lists. And you can mix them without penalty, so the same
would be true here.
FWIW, the change to MultiMarkdown.pl to make this work would just be
this:
--- bin/MultiMarkdown.pl.orig 2008-01-18 15:08:43.000000000 -0800
+++ bin/MultiMarkdown.pl 2009-02-18 12:28:47.000000000 -0800
@@ -2559,7 +2559,7 @@
my $definition = qr{
\n?[ ]{0,$less_than_tab}
- \:[ \t]+(.*?)\n
+ [:~][ \t]+(.*?)\n
((?=\n*[ ]{0,$less_than_tab}\S)|\n\n|\Z) # Lookahead for non-space
at line-start,
# two returns, or end of doc
}sx;
Plus documentation, of course. Doesn't get much simpler than that.
Thanks for your reply.
Best,
David
_______________________________________________
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
