Le 12-juil.-2014 à 10:32, Sean Leonard <[email protected]> a écrit :
> Markdown may have a concept of HTML validity. A Markdown processor that > identifies HTML in Markdown content may determine that the HTML is valid or > invalid. For example, it may identify <div> ... [end of document] as HTML > that is invalid because it lacks a closing </div> tag. Then, it has five > choices: > 1. treat the invalid HTML as text--pass the text-as-text to the markup (i.e., > turn & into & , < into < , etc.) > 2. treat the invalid HTML as Markdown--keep on processing the input and look > for markdown inside of it (thus *hello* inside the invalid HTML will get > marked up...and <div><a href="http://www.example.com/";>hello</a>[end of > document] will become a real link with the literal text '<div>' preceding it) > <-- this is the same behavior as "not identifying the text as HTML in the > first place" > 3. pass the invalid HTML as HTML > 4. attempt to fix the HTML...thus <div><a > href="http://www.example.com/";>hello</a>[end of document] might become > <div><a href="http://www.example.com/";>hello</a></div> > 5. fail due to HTML invalidity > > ? Is that really a question? 1. Turning `&` and `<` into `&` and `<` is part of the official syntax rules. Hopefully every Markdown parser does that. 2. 3. 4. 5. We have implementations doing all of that, probably mixing a few of those solutions depending on the exact error. When you have a question like this, just try it Babelmark 2: http://johnmacfarlane.net/babelmark2/?normalize=1&text=%3Cdiv%3E -- Michel Fortin [email protected] http://michelf.ca _______________________________________________ Markdown-Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
