On 11/14/07, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
I would recommend against considering this at this time (if ever).
Hopping around changing basic syntax is probably not the thing to do when in the middle of changing the parser mechanics.
I would say this:
Some text with '''bold''' and some ''italics'' and even some '''''bold italics'''''.
is basic syntax. We're not changing that.
This:
Some text with '''''bold italics''' then just italics''. Oh and I did I mention ''''bold preceded by apostrophes'''' and who knows, some ''''''random'''' combinations''''' of '''' apostrophes ''''''''' and bold/italics''' that noone ''''' can ''''''''''predict the behaviour '''of'...
is not basic syntax. It can't be EBNF'ed. It can't be translated exactly according to the whims of the current parser.
I could accept that the first sentence of my second part is "basic syntax". But not this kind of madness: # If there is an odd number of both bold and italics, it is likely # that one of the bold ones was meant to be an apostrophe followed # by italics. Which one we cannot know for certain, but it is more # likely to be one that has a single-letter word before it.
That's why we're proposing *adding* ** and //, to provide alternative mechanisms for these complicated situations.
A perhaps simpler solution would be to add a _ character which is rendered as nothing if found in an apostrophe jungle. '''_'' is definitely bold then italics. '''_' is definitely bold beginning with an apostrophe. '''_''' is definitely not going to render the way you think...
Steve