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
on 22.02.2008 15:30
on 24.02.2008 18:38
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
on 24.02.2008 23:02
> > 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
on 25.02.2008 18:15
I didn't have any idea, John. Thanks for shedding some light on it, David. Jason