As background: I’m dealing primarily with Chinese, Japanese and Arabic but with people on the team from each respective area, and they are fortunately fluent in my native language or English.
So, in the case of zh-CHT in markdown (traditional Chinese), per what I understand in the Commonmark spec, the below will fail to output properly:
**「在進，**進MORE CHINESE CHARACTERS HERE 。」
I.e. Asterisks will render.
In the case of:
**「我『12個』。**進MORE CHINESE CHARACTERS HERE」 ─
This renders, just fine.
They are slightly different cases.
The above mentioned post chain seems to be addressing or speaking to the same issue.
I’m unsure if their was a handling I’m not seeing in the spec OR if there is something needed by the community which I could assist with so as to address this (and the earlier post).
As background: I’m dealing primarily with Chinese, Japanese and Arabic but with people on the team from each respective area, and they are fortunately fluent in my native language or English.
So, in the case of zh-CHT in markdown (traditional Chinese), per what I understand in the Commonmark spec, the below will fail to output properly:
**「在進，**進MORE CHINESE CHARACTERS HERE 。」
I.e. Asterisks will render.
In the case of:
**「我『12個』。**進MORE CHINESE CHARACTERS HERE」 ─
This renders, just fine.
What are you using to render them? With cmark you don’t get
strong emphasis in this case either.
The issue is that the ** in 。**進 is left-flanking, and
so can’t close emphasis.
(I do appreciate that there’s an issue here dealing with
Chinese; the current rules make more sense for a language
that uses spaces between words. But I don’t understand
why you say your two cases are treated differently.)
Hello, thank you for taking the time jgm, and this possibly is not an adequate answer, however, I am using Goldmark - which per data to hand - reflects the commonmark spec.
When you say “With cmark you don’t get strong emphasis in this case either”; do you mean the second case which I state “renders, just fine”?
And with that, pardon, I now understand your point. Both cases shouldn’t work due to the left flanking. Now, got it.
So, in my particular case they are being treated differently by Goldmark, which I can track down exactly why, but that would be an issue for Goldmark, no? So I’ll leave that specific conundrum to that realm…
Then I believe, the clarification to my post on Commonmark, please correct me if I’m wrong, would be:
Is their a plan to address the lack of an emphasis solution for Chinese in Commonmark’s spec due to the left-flanking of the subsequent character issue?
Then, following this:
If so or not, is their anything I can be of assistance on to help move this forward or, approach a resolution?
What should that solution be? Whether or not CommonMark will add support for it, I would like to know what a natural and intuitive syntax for bold and emphasis in CJK lightweight markup would look like.
Thank you vas, that’s the description of the problem then, no?
Give me about 10 days, I’ll be working with teams 2 of the three languages locally (not one of those areas) and abroad (in two of those areas), and I’ll get my understanding in of what’s available/practical and sequitor on their keyboard and text layout systems and give what information I get/best guess along with as much information as possible.
Possibly I might hit something or at least give valid data.
I’ll let you know.
Thanks Roger. Whether or not CommonMark makes any changes for CJK, I’m interested as I’m working on a proposal for a more generalized and customizable markup standard with is fully supports Markdown/CommonMark.