Textile parser is back

[Vassil Dichev <vd...@apache.org>]

Hello folks,

It took a while, but ESME now features the Lift Textile parser- again.
This time though, I've come up with a better implementation by
subclassing it instead of parsing the text fragments between hashtags
and usernames parsed by our own MsgParser.

As a result of this, there will surely be bugs- in particular,
ESME-307 is back, because it's now handled by the Lift Textile parser.
I can now solve it in lift-textile, though.

Another peculiarity is that currently there is no code for "unparsing"
textile markup for text-only clients, which mostly concerns the
Twitter API. This means that the characteristic extra markup
characters will be stripped, e.g. "*some* **text**" will come out as
"some text". This might be considered as a feature, though ;-) What do
you think- should I include code to get text back to how it was or is
text actually better after this "cleanup"?

Feel free to test and break stuff and let me know.

Regards,
Vassil

-- 
Twitter: http://twitter.com/vdichev
Blog: http://speaking-my-language.blogspot.com

Re: Textile parser is back

[Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com>]

Great - thanks

Nice that you can fix those bugs in lift - a real benefit that you are
a committer on both projects.

D.

On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Vassil Dichev <vd...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> It took a while, but ESME now features the Lift Textile parser- again.
> This time though, I've come up with a better implementation by
> subclassing it instead of parsing the text fragments between hashtags
> and usernames parsed by our own MsgParser.
>
> As a result of this, there will surely be bugs- in particular,
> ESME-307 is back, because it's now handled by the Lift Textile parser.
> I can now solve it in lift-textile, though.
>
> Another peculiarity is that currently there is no code for "unparsing"
> textile markup for text-only clients, which mostly concerns the
> Twitter API. This means that the characteristic extra markup
> characters will be stripped, e.g. "*some* **text**" will come out as
> "some text". This might be considered as a feature, though ;-) What do
> you think- should I include code to get text back to how it was or is
> text actually better after this "cleanup"?
>
> Feel free to test and break stuff and let me know.
>
> Regards,
> Vassil
>
> --
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/vdichev
> Blog: http://speaking-my-language.blogspot.com
>