On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 10:08:02PM +0000, colecmac at protonmail.com wrote: Hi! > > At this point it seems like we may as well go "whole hog" and insist on > > at least one space after all the line type markers - that would mean > > quote lines starting with "> " and link lines starting with "=> ". Does > > anybody object to that? > > > I do sort of object to this. I don't think there's much value in switching > the other definitions when a need hasn't been demonstrated. I have seen many > links that don't have a space after the "=>", and I don't see why there needs to > be a space after the quote marker either. It's nicer to read in both cases, > but I'm not in favour of creating changes when they don't seem to be required. > > Why not just change the heading lines? This is a good question, let me show my opinion about why i agree with these changes. In short to me, the reason to put a space after ">" or "=>" is the same that changed "*" to "*<space>". If, in a distant future, a new convention appears for identify a word, or a text starting with a word using ">" (for example) the gemini parser will steps in an inconvenience like the ones we are discussing in this thread with "#". Because is (in my opinion) unlikely that a person (i mean an human being :-)) writing a text that will be read by other persons, marks a word using a string prefix that include a word separator (including space) after and before or in the middle of it i think would be a good idea change the format to require a space for any of the symbols Solderpunk mentioned. This is, of course, probably not the only reason to make this changes (and maybe is not very valid :)) but i can not find any better at this time! ;D I hope i was able to explain my point even with my bad English! Bye! C.
---
Previous in thread (24 of 26): 🗣️ Gary Johnson (lambdatronic (a) disroot.org)
Next in thread (26 of 26): 🗣️ Solderpunk (solderpunk (a) posteo.net)