S
Stephan Kämper
Hi all, hi _why,
I wonder what to expect from a RedCloth string in case some quoted text
or text ending in an ellpisis (...) has a footnote attached to it.
The example below shows what I mean. The 2nd footnote is rendered into
the HTML as I expected, however the 1st and 3rd footnotes aren't.
Am I expecting the unreasonable or am I plain wrong?
If so, is there any workaround except typing HTML directly (which BTW is
what I'd like to avoid - and the reason to use RedCloth )?
# Ruby code start --------------------
require "redcloth"
rdcl = RedCloth.new( DATA.read )
puts rdcl.to_html
__END__
the answer is ... is ...
The answer is "42"[1]
A reference without quote before it[2]
Any _special_ chars like three dots in a row...[3]
some...
....more...
text...
fn1. Douglas Adams
fn2. ... yields the expected HTML
fn3. ... don't seem to to be 'footnotable' either
# Ruby code end --------------------
The output is:
---- out put starts here ----
<p>the answer is … is …<br />
The answer is “42”[1]</p>
<p>A reference without quote before it<sup><a href="#fn2">2</a></sup><br />
Any <em>special</em> chars like three dots in a row…[3]<br />
some…<br />
....more…<br />
text…</p>
<p id="fn1"><sup>1</sup> Douglas Adams</p>
<p id="fn2"><sup>2</sup> ... yields the expected <span
class="caps">HTML</span></p>
<p id="fn3"><sup>3</sup> ... don’t seem to to be
‘footnotable’ either<br />
---- out put ends here ----
Note, that '[1]' and '[3]' are not replaced while the '[2]' part is
rendered into '<sup><a href="#fn2">2</a></sup>'.
Ah well, the version information:
Ruby is
a) 1.8.1-13 on a WinXP (the 1-click-installer)
b) 1.8.2 preview2 (preview of the latest stable release)
running under Linux
In both cases the RedCloth version is 2.0.11.
Happy rubying
Stephan
I wonder what to expect from a RedCloth string in case some quoted text
or text ending in an ellpisis (...) has a footnote attached to it.
The example below shows what I mean. The 2nd footnote is rendered into
the HTML as I expected, however the 1st and 3rd footnotes aren't.
Am I expecting the unreasonable or am I plain wrong?
If so, is there any workaround except typing HTML directly (which BTW is
what I'd like to avoid - and the reason to use RedCloth )?
# Ruby code start --------------------
require "redcloth"
rdcl = RedCloth.new( DATA.read )
puts rdcl.to_html
__END__
the answer is ... is ...
The answer is "42"[1]
A reference without quote before it[2]
Any _special_ chars like three dots in a row...[3]
some...
....more...
text...
fn1. Douglas Adams
fn2. ... yields the expected HTML
fn3. ... don't seem to to be 'footnotable' either
# Ruby code end --------------------
The output is:
---- out put starts here ----
<p>the answer is … is …<br />
The answer is “42”[1]</p>
<p>A reference without quote before it<sup><a href="#fn2">2</a></sup><br />
Any <em>special</em> chars like three dots in a row…[3]<br />
some…<br />
....more…<br />
text…</p>
<p id="fn1"><sup>1</sup> Douglas Adams</p>
<p id="fn2"><sup>2</sup> ... yields the expected <span
class="caps">HTML</span></p>
<p id="fn3"><sup>3</sup> ... don’t seem to to be
‘footnotable’ either<br />
---- out put ends here ----
Note, that '[1]' and '[3]' are not replaced while the '[2]' part is
rendered into '<sup><a href="#fn2">2</a></sup>'.
Ah well, the version information:
Ruby is
a) 1.8.1-13 on a WinXP (the 1-click-installer)
b) 1.8.2 preview2 (preview of the latest stable release)
running under Linux
In both cases the RedCloth version is 2.0.11.
Happy rubying
Stephan