07/12/01 08:55:31 feNXdQI/
あいつらは本当に、どうでもいいような議論ばっかしてるよなあ
ちと転載
FROM : Steve Bennett stevagewp at gmail.com
DATE : Thu Nov 29 05:34:14 UTC 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 11/29/07, Andrew Dunbar <hippytrail at gmail.com> wrote:
> There should probably be basic semantics for clear cut cases such as
> balanced unambiguous italic and bold markers, with anything unbalanced
> or ambiguous being left to the language- or wiki-specific semantic stage.
>
> This way we can have the common-sense ''italics'' and '''bold''' and treat
> everything else as a special case which may be determined by the wiki.
> This might in theory even make proper handling of double apostrophes
> in Neapolitan possible.
Interesting thought.
<sp>''foo, foo''<sp>, <sp>''<sp> -> guaranteed italics
<sp>'''foo, foo'''<sp>, <sp>'''<sp> -> guaranteed bold
foo''foo -> language-dependent, possibly literal (for neapolitan)
foo'''foo -> language-dependent, possibly apostrophe-italic (for
French, Italian etc)
'''' -> always apostrophe-bold?
''''' -> guaranteed bold-italics
'''''' -> ? as present, apostrophes bold-italics
Personally, I'm not too fond of the 4-apostrophe rule, as this is unintuitive:
* ''''four''''
If a person meant that to mean anything, they probably want the "four"
in bold, surrounded by unbolded apostrophes. But they actually get the
second apostrophe in bold. So I would suggest:
<sp>''''foo -> apostrophe, bold.
foo''''<sp> -> bold, apostrophe
<sp>''''<sp> -> ? there's no good reason why it should be apostrophe,
bold. rendering it as double apostrophe seems as reasonable to me as
anything else.
Steve