Last modified: 2014-11-10 11:18:06 UTC
Fairly self-explanatory (and weird).
Annotations get applied to the text in the order that they're applied in reality; we should probably make links higher-priority. Thus [[Foo|F'''''o''o''']] rather than [[Foo|F]]'''''[[Foo|o]]''[[Foo|F]]'''.
Except you'd probably rather have ''[[Foo|Bar]]'' than [[Foo|''Bar'']]
(In reply to comment #2) > Except you'd probably rather have ''[[Foo|Bar]]'' than [[Foo|''Bar'']] Yeah; so it should only break out when it's not entirely nested? Spoke to Roan about this - he says it's a relatively-major change in DM that he did "about a quarter" of the work for as part of DM rewrite 2 (or similar). Pull from release?
To re-visit this, some rules I think encapsulate what we want: - Spanning annotations should never be broken (because that changes the render/interaction result), in the following order: -* Links -* Superscript / Subscript -* Underline / Strikethrough So: * <a href="Foo"><i>Foo</i>Bar</a> -> [[Foo|''Foo''Bar]], not ''[[Foo]]''[[Foo|Bar]] * <u>Foo<b>Bar</b></u> -> <u>Foo'''Bar'''</u>, not <u>Foo</u>'''<u>Bar</u>''' * <u>Foo<a href="Bar">Bar</u>Baz</a> -> <u>Foo</u>[[Bar|<u>Bar</u>Baz]], not <u>Foo[[Bar]]</u>[[Bar|Baz]] * <sup>Foo<s>Bar</sup>Baz</s> -> <sup>Foo<s>Bar</s></sup><s>Baz</s>, not <sup>Foo</sup><sup><s>Bar</s></sup><s>Baz</s> - Annotations to links' anchors which are otherwise identical to their target So: * <a href="Foo"><i>Foo</i></a> -> ''[[Foo]]'', not [[Foo|''Foo'']] - Otherwise, annotations should be minimally-spanning So: * <a href="Foo"><i>Bar</i></a> -> ''[[Foo|Bar]]'', not [[Foo|''Bar'']] * <i><b>Foo</b>Bar</i> -> '''''Foo'''Bar'' not '''''Foo'''''<nowiki />''Bar'' Does this achieve what we want? (Obviously some of this is already done by Parsoid.)
*** Bug 52912 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
In the meantime, can we suggest workarounds to "get the code right"? I.e. to avoid [[Foo|''Bar'']] you should italicize first, and link only after that. I added this to the Italian User guide, other tips I might be missing? Thanks.
Bug 51422 seems to cover the same ground as this, is it worth keeping as a separate case or better to merge?
(In reply to comment #7) > Bug 51422 seems to cover the same ground as this, is it worth keeping as a > separate case or better to merge? Merge - thanks for the spot.
*** Bug 51422 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 54092 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 51054 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 73201 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
