Plan for entities and code blocks

Ruby Apps Redcloth
1

I should have posed my questions about entities and escaped
characters in code blocks as a proposal with which you could
disagree. :slight_smile:

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

2

Jason G. 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

3

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

4

I didn’t have any idea, John. Thanks for shedding some light on it,
David.

Jason