I should have posed my questions about entities and escaped characters in code blocks as a proposal with which you could disagree. :-) Unless someone brings up a good reason to do otherwise, I''m going to leave entities in their existing form (e.g. < for <) and not convert single and double quotes to entities within code blocks. This represents a departure from Textile 2. I plan to change the Threshold State test cases accordingly. Jason
Jason Garber wrote:> This represents a departure from Textile 2.Out of curiosity, do you know why Textile 2 made the choice it did for rendering character entities? Was there some compelling design criteria involved? -- John
> > Out of curiosity, do you know why Textile 2 made the choice it did > for rendering character entities? Was there some compelling design > criteria involved? > > -- JohnJust some speculation... one of the seminal articles on character entities -- the ALA trouble with ems and ens -- said decimal entities (—, etc) were more reliably rendered. It didn''t give much detail on why named entitles were unreliable, only mentioning that netscape 4 had issues with named entities. That article is why I (and lots of others, I assume) have always used numerical entities. Maybe that''s why textile 2 chose numbered entities too? anyway, my 2 cents -- I assume modern browsers render all the named entitles correctly... so i''d agree with Jason for going with named entitles, for readability anyway. david
I didn''t have any idea, John. Thanks for shedding some light on it, David. Jason On Feb 24, 2008, at 4:22 PM, David Reese wrote:>> >> Out of curiosity, do you know why Textile 2 made the choice it did >> for rendering character entities? Was there some compelling design >> criteria involved? >> >> -- John > > Just some speculation... > > one of the seminal articles on character entities -- the ALA trouble > with ems and ens -- said decimal entities (—, etc) were more > reliably rendered. It didn''t give much detail on why named entitles > were > unreliable, only mentioning that netscape 4 had issues with named > entities. That article is why I (and lots of others, I assume) have > always used numerical entities. > > Maybe that''s why textile 2 chose numbered entities too? > > anyway, my 2 cents -- I assume modern browsers render all the named > entitles correctly... so i''d agree with Jason for going with named > entitles, for readability anyway. > > david > > > _______________________________________________ > Redcloth-upwards mailing list > Redcloth-upwards at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/redcloth-upwards