Markdown Discuss - Sep 2006 - Possible bug in Markdown.pl with `<<` handling

It appears that "double angles" are not properly converted when they  
are not in code blocks, if there is not a space following the second  
`<`.


For example:

	This is not handled <<properly>>.

		But this <<is>>.

	As is << this>>/.

becomes:

	<p>This is not handled &lt;<properly>>.</p>
	
	<pre><code>But this &lt;&lt;is&gt;&gt;.
	</code></pre>
	
	<p>As is &lt;&lt; this>>/.</p>


The `&;t;<` causes problems with XSLT.  I suppose one could look for  
series of `<`'s and convert them all to `&lt;`.  Is there any  
situation in which this would be the incorrect thing to do?


Fletcher


-- 
Fletcher T. Penney
fletcher@alumni.duke.edu

I have noted that persons with bad judgment are most insistent that  
we do what they think best.
     - Lionel Abel


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2431 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/markdown-discuss/attachments/20060911/17e60d37/smime.bin

Fletcher T. Penney wrote:
> It appears that "double angles" are not properly converted when
they are
> not in code blocks, if there is not a space following the second `<`.
> 
> For example:
> 
>     This is not handled <<properly>>.
> 
> 
> becomes:
> 
>     <p>This is not handled &lt;<properly>>.</p>

I'm just wondering? is there any case where you want
`<<properly>>` not
in a monospace font?  That has to be some kind of codeword, and I can't 
imagine it coming up in regular prose.  My suggestion is to either 
escape the second `<`, as in `\<\<properly>>`, or else just wrap
the
whole thing in `\`` marks, as in `` `<<properly` ``.  Markdown
shouldn't
be expected to deal with such weird almost?html-tag things.

-Jacob

Le 11 sept. 2006 ? 17:00, Fletcher T. Penney a ?crit :
> It appears that "double angles" are not properly converted when  
> they are not in code blocks, if there is not a space following the  
> second `<`.
>
> For example:
>
> 	This is not handled <<properly>>.
>
> 		But this <<is>>.
>
> 	As is << this>>/.
Your example illustrate the problem quite well, but is it really a  
bug? How can Markdown tell <properly> isn't really a tag? What if you
had <<img src="">>? In fact, Markdown treat
<properly> as if it was a
tag and leave it alone as it should according to John's syntax  
description document.

The question is: should we make an exception for the << construct? It  
wouldn't be terribly difficult.


Michel Fortin
michel.fortin@michelf.com
http://www.michelf.com/