[kramdown-users] Inline comments

Shawn Van Ittersum svicalifornia at gmail.com
Mon Apr 12 02:31:45 EDT 2010

Well, I can still see that being a source of great confusion, even more so when the tags are wrapped around a block.  I would at least like kramdown to support an alternate close-tag syntax, so I can make sure that my documents can use distinctive close tags.  Having to track whether each {::nomarkdown:} or other state-toggle tag is opening or closing in a long document could be a major pain.


On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 02:11:18 -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> On 4/12/2010 1:11 AM, Shawn Van Ittersum wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 22:59:49 -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote:
>>>> With that in mind, I suggest:
>>>>    {:comment} skip this {:/comment}
>>> This feels unusually XML-like and inconsistent with the rest of the
>>> kramdown extension syntax. Also, it is hardly less verbose than the
>>> more obvious:
>>>    {::comment:}skip this{::comment:}
>> I think using the same tag to toggle comment status on and off will
>> be problematic.  The editor may overlook the first comment tag and
>> think that the comment begins with the second tag, especially if the
>> commented string is sufficiently long. [...] SGML, HTML, and XML use
>> a slash to denote close tags distinct from open tags to avoid the
>> above problem.  If kramdown tags are going to be used as containers
>> in this manner, then the tags should similarly have distinct open and
>> close forms.
> I mentioned the above possible syntax since the block form already 
> uses the same tag to open and close comments (and 'nomarkdown', 
> etc.). For instance, the following already is accepted:
>   {::comment:}
>   skip this
>   {::comment:}
> Reference: http://kramdown.rubyforge.org/syntax.html#extension-blocks
> -- ES
> _______________________________________________
> kramdown-users mailing list
> kramdown-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/kramdown-users

More information about the kramdown-users mailing list