On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 11:55 AM, david parsons <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Waylan Limberg  <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>The original design goals also specifically stated that anything more
>>complex that the syntax already supported should be handled by raw
>>html. And, well, if you look at the source of his pages (add ".txt" to
>>the urls), J.G. almost exclusively uses raw html for his headers.
>
>    Hmm?   From a casual look at Daring Fireball this morning, about
>    the only raw html headers I saw were ones where he was id'ing
>    them (since, alas, the standard doesn't have the [foo](id:bar)
>    pseudo-protocol.)

Figures. I almost went and double checked before writing that, but
went off of memory alone. Memory tends to exaggerate things like that.
That's what I get.

>
>>But
>>that's not what I would call designed for lazy users.
>
>    It might be just me, but the surprise factor of having a header
>    reach back and grab an entire paragraphs might be less attractive
>    than it would seem, even to the body of users who write long headers
>    with a text editor that forces line-wrap at 80 characters.
>

You have a point. However, I tend to almost exclusively use hash
headers (less typing) and as the first line of the header is always
defined, it wouldn't be a problem. The problem is that the paragraph
after could get consumed if the author failed to include a blank line.

To be honest, I can't think of any elegant way to do multi-line setext
headers, but multi-line hash headers should be easy.


-- 
----
\X/ /-\ `/ |_ /-\ |\|
Waylan Limberg
_______________________________________________
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

Reply via email to