Don't auto-code-ify "strings" in paragraphs about ecmarkdown

[bterlson]

Worth noting that I believe this works with the fragment entry point currently as escapeHtml turns " into "

[domenic]

An alternate approach is to stop auto-codeifying strings everywhere. It doesn't gain you all that much. Thoughts? /cc @rwaldron @caridy @littledan who have been using Ecmark{up,down} in anger and possibly have experienced this issue enough to give feedback.

[littledan]

Why not auto-code-ify strings? I have been using an old version of ecmark{up,down} so I didn't actually see this feature yet.

[domenic]

Inside paragraphs you often use quotes for things that are not strings. Inside algorithms though it's almost always a real string. But e.g. check out the overzealous codeification in https://arv.github.io/ecmascript-object-observe/#solution

Other examples of where codeification would be wrong:

• http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/6.0/#sec-syntactic-grammar
• http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/6.0/#sec-grammar-notation (a lot)
• http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/6.0/#sec-ecmascript-language-types-number-type

etc.

[jmdyck]

You could decide that only straight-quoted strings are auto-code-ified, and curly-quoted strings are left as-is. So in cases of overzealous codeification, change straight quotes to curlies.

[domenic]

Yeah, but then people have to type curlies (or use entities).

[bterlson]

I think we should just get rid of codification of strings. Surrounding with backticks is ok. I'm confused at why it's backticks and not stars though. Why is true a value and a string code? See also #9.

[bterlson]

Getting rid of codification will also make #17 easier probably.

[rwaldron]

Surrounding with backticks is ok.

Thats what I figured anyway? I don't think I've yet encountered the issues being discussed.

[littledan]

OK, SGTM

[bterlson]

@domenic I plan to simply remove this. Will send PR.