thank you for taking the time to share these thoughts, bowerbird. much food for thought.
On 7 July 2013 20:00, Sherwood Botsford <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Markdown-Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
