Recognize HTML5 Block-Level Elements

[silverhammermba]

I regenerated html_blocks.h using gperf. Also, I added the source file for gperf so that it's easier to regenerate in the future if the block-level elements are change.

[doktorbro]

Please add a test for that feature. I suggest you add this known issue with 4-spaces-indented image:

<section>
    <img src="http://example.org/image.jpg" alt="">
</section>

[mhulse]

Because I know how much fun it can be to write tests ... 😆

Possibly another test:

<figure>

    <img src="http://example.org/image.jpg" alt="">

    <figcaption>
        <p>Hello world!</p>
    </figcaption>

</figure>

... as it's probably just as common, in HTML5, to wrap images in <figure> (probably more appropriate than <section>).

IMHO, a real-world <section> use case would be:

<section>

    <header>

        <hgroup>

            <h1>Section heading</h1>
            <h2>Subhead</h2>

        </hgroup>

    </header>

    <figure>

        <img src="http://example.org/image.jpg" alt="">

        <figcaption>
            <p>Hello world!</p>
        </figucaption>

    </figure>

    <p>The quick brown fox <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_quick_brown_fox_jumps_over_the_lazy_dog">jumps over the lazy dog.</a></p>

</section>

Another test:

<article>

    <h1>Hello world!</h1>

    <figure>

        <img src="http://example.org/image.jpg" alt="">

        <figcaption>
            <p>Hello world!</p>
        </figucaption>

    </figure>

    <p>Could be summary text that goes here.</p>

</article>

Another thing to note, just in terms of docs perhaps, is that HTML5 changed the "distinction" of the term "block":

The distinction of block-level vs. inline elements is used in HTML specifications up to 4.01. In HTML5, this binary distinction is replaced with a more complex set of content categories. The "block-level" category roughly corresponds to the category of flow content in HTML5, while "inline" corresponds to phrasing content, but there are additional categories.

— MDN

Not sure if that's of any interest to anyone.

---

Edit:

I've found these pages helpful for when it comes to eyeballing all of the latest/greatest HTML5 tags:

• MDN: HTML5 element list
• MDN: HTML element reference

Not sure if that would be of help here ... Having quickly glanced at the html_block.h file, it looks like all the bases are covered.

---

Let me know if you need some more help thinking of tests.

[robin850]

I will try to have a look soon guys ; sorry for the delay and thanks for the patch! Merry Christmas too! 🎄

[robin850]

Ok, so this looks good to me. Just a couple of things:

• Actually I'm not sure whether we should ship the html_block_names.txt file. I would be in favor of adding a comment in the generated C file pointing to a Gist or something like this. @mattr- Any thoughts on this please ?
• Could you add a changelog entry please ?
• A big 👍 for the tests

Thank you guys!

[robin850]

@silverhammermba : Any chance to address the feedback please ? :-)

[silverhammermba]

@robin850 I'm trying to throw in some tests, but now I can't get it to recognize HTML5 blocks using my patch. Granted I haven't touched redcarpet in a while, but I guess I must be building it wrong.

[robin850]

@silverhammermba : Based on current master, if I run:

$ git checkout -b silverhammermba-html5 master
$ git pull git@github.com:silverhammermba/redcarpet.git html5
$ rake

It works perfectly. If you have problem running tests, be sure to prefix rake calls with bundle exec. On certain setups, the installed version of Redcarpet will be picked instead of the local copy.

[silverhammermba]

Yeah, forgot to use bundle. I added a test which definitely works, but for some reason bundle exec rake test still complains about the HTML5 blocks even though testing manually with bundle exec bin/redcarpet works just fine. Whatever. It should be all good now.

[robin850]

@silverhammermba : Thank you very much ! Could you please remove the html_block_names.txt file ?

Also, in general we should not alter the conformance suite as this is the original Markdown specs. Could you move these tests at the Ruby level please ? I guess you don't have to keep the whole files but if you really want, you can put them under the test/fixtures folder. :-)

[silverhammermba]

I have made the requested changes.

[robin850]

Thanks for your patch and your patience @silverhammermba ! ❤️ 💙 💛 💜 💚