Bowerbird, after this epistle, I promise to read you more thoroughly. Nicely put.
Respectfully, Sherwood of Sherwood's Forests Sherwood Botsford Sherwood's Forests -- http://Sherwoods-Forests.com 780-848-2548 50042 Range Rd 31 Warburg, Alberta T0C 2T0 On 7 July 2013 20:21, bowerbird <[email protected]> wrote: > first, i'm sorry for the expletive in your in-box. really. > > i also apologize for the smell from those dead skunks. > > *** > > as to "what this has to do with markdown", it's simple. > > if i remember correctly -- i might not, but who cares? -- > "fan_f*ck*ng_tastic" was the word gruber used to justify > his choice that his version of markdown would recognize > intraword italics. so that's why _i_ used that one as well. > > now, the reason i followed it up with my reference to the > dead-skunk problem is because it's almost perfect as a > demonstration of the full range of problems these days... > > a person comes in and says, "hey, i noticed this glitch". > > somebody else says "here's a workaround you can use." > > which -- first -- ignores the fact that it's after-the-fact. > > but, in this particular case, the suggestion was actually > better than most. to remind you, the workaround was to > surround filename_withanunderbar.txt with `backticks`, > which marks it as `code`, and thus short-circuits italics. > > because, as the suggester pointed out, it is the case that > you probably _want_ filenames to be marked as `code`, > so they will display in a different typeface, and stand out. > > the problem with that tactic, however, is that it does not > address the situation where you would want the word to > be rendered with the same typeface as surrounding text. > you wouldn't want "fan_f*ck*ng_tastic" marked as code. > > so... sticking with the problem in regard to filenames... > > another workaround would be to backslash/escape the > underbar in the filename, which will also nix the italics, > but that presents a different problem, which is that now > we've gummed up the plain-text version of the filename > with an unwanted backslash, with unknown side-effects. > (since you just know somebody is going to end up using > that now-improper filename, and they will suffer for it.) > > that same type of problem would likely manifest with the > "just use raw .html" workaround, even if you can find the > way to concoct that. (it hurts my brain to think about it; > i'm using light-markup so i'm not forced to do raw html.) > > the fact is, we really want to leave a filename untouched. > but we also don't want its underbars to be italic triggers. > > and remember that when an underbar is misrecognized > as an italic-trigger, it's dropped from .html output, so > we now have _another_ wrong version of that filename, > in addition to the difficult problem of the runaway italics. > > and, just to remind y'all that this is even _more_ thorny, > this underbar problem also happens regularly with urls. > > (there are other instances too, but i do not intend to > share all of the results from my hard-fought research; > since url's have the problem, it is significant enough.) > > this is not a thing we can casually sweep under the rug. > > which is why some markdown script-writers have just > decided that they will _disallow_ intraword underbars. > > and, in defense of that decision, it is the absolute truth > that browsers make a sad tragedy with intraword italics. > go look at some, take a hard look, and you _will_ see it: > the italic characters either slant into the upright ones, or > lean far too far away from them. either side, it's _awful_. > > so yes, many markdown scripters do an outright ban... > > which is fine if you are god, and you make the decisions. > > but if you are beholden to users, it might not be so good. > > and if you consider yourself to be a _servant_of_writers_, > then you really need to do a bit of research (or lots of it) > to discern if writers actually do ever use intraword italics. > > that was what i did, as i was developing my light-markup. > > so i can tell you that, yes, indeed, writers _do_ use them. > > not a lot, of course, but they're not that infrequent either, > and it is a sizable percentage of writers that do use them. > > so that's probably why about _half_ of the implementations > ban 'em, and half _allow_ them. it's split down the middle. > > so if you really want to know if it's acceptable to ban them, > my advice would be "no". > > *** > > now, let's go back and look what the original poster said. > > > Why not to ignore all "_" > > which are not followed or preceded > > either by a whitespace or by a newline? > > just for the record, a newline _is_ whitespace, so we can > strike the "or by a newline" phrase; just use "whitespace". > > as a first pass in thinking about that issue, that's not bad. > i'd say it's the "solution" most people would come up with. > > i wouldn't even be surprised if some implementations do > indeed use exactly that rule to govern their conversions... > > but if you actually go look at where italics markup is used, > you'll find many people put italics _inside_ any punctuation. > (most typically, you can find this with double-quote marks, > but any terminal-punctuation will present the same issue.) > > now i wouldn't recommend that, because -- as i just said -- > browsers do a lousy job when italics are next to un-italics, > and that's true for punctuation as much as other characters. > > but the fact remains that a lot of people use italics like that, > so if you use "whitespace" as the rule, you'll screw them up. > > (of course, by putting your underbars _outside_ quotemarks, > you can screw up some conversion routines for curly-quotes, > because _they_ are using whitespace to make their decisions; > but that's why you need to decide things in a systematic way.) > > again, back to the original poster: > > > It would be nice to make > > a part of the official Markdown definition > > then all implementation will display this in the same way. > > as gruber put it, years ago and very recently, people _say_ > they wanna have an "official" version of markdown -- but > what they _mean_ is that they want _their_ pet desires to > receive his stamp of approval as "the official markdown". > > but if gruber _were_ to make an "official version", he says > that it would make those people very unhappy, because he > will instantiate _his_ pet desires as the canonical standard. > > so, let me say to the original poster, gruber _did_ make the > closest thing to an official version, and it specifically _allows_ > intraword italics. so you wouldn't get what you want anyway. > > which is not to say that other implementations, which do it > _differently_ are "wrong", because gruber likes it "flexible". > > in other words, he doesn't _want_ all implementations to > "display in the same way". which could be well and good, > if not for all these dead skunks in the middle of the road. > > you can call it "flexiblity", or you can call it "inconsistencies". > > whether you, or i, or anyone else for that matter, considers > all this to be "right" or "wrong" is entirely beside the point... > > since gruber ain't gonna change his ways, and neither are > the many developers, whose stubborn insistence has also > been equally-well documented, there is no resolution here. > > which is why most people have stopped thinking long ago. > > *** > > and _that_, my friends, is another one of the problems here. > > because that refusal to do any more thinking on the matters > -- the disinclination to remove dead skunks from the road -- > means that the situation really has become totally hopeless. > > as fletcher put it, in his reply to the original poster: > > > Stick around. You'll learn. ;) > > hey, at least he put a winkey-smiley after it... ;+) > > *** > > so, just to do a follow-through as a for-example for you, > let me run you through the thinking that i did when i was > working about the aspects of this intraword italics issue. > > one part, which i mentioned above, was to survey books > -- as my system focuses on books -- to see if authors > actually use intraword italics. and they occasionally do. > > on the other hand, more research revealed quite readily > that there was a problem with both filenames and urls, > as they often contain underbars. (and, so i note it, yes, > a url _is_ a filename, but sometimes it's a symbolic one > -- in the sense that the "file" does not actually exist -- > so both for purposes of clarity and to remind us of the > full range of the problem, i mention them specifically.) > > so, both use-cases do exist. we have intraword italics, > and intraword underbars that must be taken as literals. > > thus, we need a way to differentiate them. > > the key here, to which i have already given one big hint, > is that the literal-underbars occur in specific situations, > namely for filenames and urls. intraword italics, on the > other hand, occur (by definition) in the middle of words. > > so when my system encounters an underbar in a string, > it decides whether the string is a filename/url or a word. > in the former, the underbar is seen as a literal character; > in the latter, the underbar is considered an italic trigger. > > it's relatively simple to determine if something is a url; > e.g., an "http" or a "www" or a ".com" is a dead giveway. > and an internal period is a good indicator of a filename, > especially if it's followed by a known filename extension. > > likewise, it's relatively easy to tell if something is a word, > or is not, once you have removed the underbars inside it. > if it's in the dictionary, or if it's repeated (sans underbars) > elsewhere in the document, odds are that the underbars > in this version of the string are intended as italic triggers. > > so, in my testing, this decision-rule has been pretty solid. > > it's not something that i would recommend for markdown, > because of factors i will discuss later, but it works for me. > > and, more to the point i'm trying to make here, it's what > can happen if you really try hard to resolve a discrepancy, > rather than simply just throwing your hands up in the air. > (like you just don't care. hu-hum, hu-hum, baby-cakes.) > > i mean, i understand the paralysis that _will_ result when > you're mired in a standoff situation, like this has become, > but i think you markdown developers need to fight that. > instead, you've all let yourself become complacent about > the edge-cases and inconsistencies that dog the format. > > a little elbow-grease might go a long way, is what i say. > > but you're going to have to apply it. i had to work a lot > to come to the easy understanding of intraword italics > that i have just imparted to you. you need to work too. > > and, for me, the italics situation was actually less sticky > than the asterisk problem, because asterisk-overload is > much, much worse. asterisks -- which i use for *bold* > (and i didn't take the easy way out and require two) -- > _also_ represent bullets in unordered lists, _and_ occur > in equations where they are the sign for multiplication. > writing the routines to sort through all that was a pain. > > further, curly-quote conversion isn't as easy as it seems. > a single round of thinking (like microsoft did) will create > a converter that makes some very embarassing mistakes. > > even a couple more rounds of thinking might not give > you a routine that correctly gives straight-quotes in the > cases where the marks are referring to feet and inches, > or the minutes-and-seconds part of lattitude/longitude. > > again, this is the kind of intense thinking you have to do > if you wanna sort through these types of difficulties, but > nobody here that i can see is doing much thinking at all. > and for sure you don't share any thinking you are doing, > or bounce ideas off of each other in a collaborative way. > > and that's really sad. > > *** > > so, anyway, this is what i'd recommend for markdown, > as your general solution to the underbar/italic problem. > > (and, yes, i am chuckling as i write this, because i know > darn well that nobody even wants "a general solution", > and even though some implementations already do it, > the rest -- including gruber -- will never, ever, follow, > so any such proposal is an exercise in mere folly, but...) > > anyway, here it is: > > ban intraword italics, outright, with full notice, _but_ > make it clear that the workaround is to use raw .html > to obtain the necessary italics for any intraword needs. > > (and if you're curious why i don't use this in my system, > the reason is because i do not permit raw .html at all.) > > *** > > and, finally, hey, let's put this all into perspective, ok? > > the kind of standoff we have here is relatively minor. > and the problems we see border on the most trivial... > > we see the same type of stubborness at a larger level > as the big corporations continue lobbying for d.r.m., > and the big tech companies up their lock-in tactics. > > and unlike here, in little old markdown land, where > there is no money to be made one way or the other, > the dollars from d.r.m. and lock-in could be _huge_. > so those companies are gonna be firm, intransigent, > and persistent in their stubbornness and their greed. > > and, on a bigger level still, look at global warming, > and the way that we are rapidly polluting our planet. > > again, the standoff there is so much more dangerous, > as the money is _staggering_, so don't even bother to > wonder if any of the big corporations will ever change. > > and once humans go extinct, it will not really matter if, > once upon a time, somewhere along the line, someone > had their italics messed up because of a stray underbar. > > so, just so you know, if it was _just_ markdown that this > was relevant to, i probably wouldn't care nearly so much. > > but the problem of stubborn standoffs is much bigger, > and applies to arenas far larger than this little molehill, > causing problems worse than the smell of dead skunks, > and _that_ is why i care, and why i choose to speak up... > > now i will ask you: why do you sit and suffer in silence? > > -bowerbird > > _______________________________________________ > Markdown-Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss >
_______________________________________________ Markdown-Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
