fix: render inline markup correctly in HTML and Adoc#1186
Conversation
ℹ️ InfoNote PR description is missing template sections: Changes, Testing, Documentation. Following the pull request template helps reviewers find rationale, testing notes, and docs status quickly. ✨ Highlights
🧾 Changes by Scope
🔝 Top Files
|
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #1186 +/- ##
========================================
Coverage 82.12% 82.12%
========================================
Files 33 33
Lines 3149 3149
Branches 734 734
========================================
Hits 2586 2586
Misses 387 387
Partials 176 176
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
|
An automated preview of the documentation is available at https://1186.mrdocs.prtest2.cppalliance.org/index.html If more commits are pushed to the pull request, the docs will rebuild at the same URL. 2026-06-04 07:09:10 UTC |
f0c0ddb to
35d81dc
Compare
Five kinds of inline markup in doc comments (emphasis, highlight, subscript, superscript, and strikethrough) were not rendered correctly: - HTML output silently dropped the wrapping element, so emphasized text and the others appeared as bare text. - AsciiDoc output rendered all five as italics, which is correct for emphasis but semantically wrong for the others (e.g., a subscript appeared as italic text, not lowered). Both rendering paths now produce semantically appropriate markup: `<em>`, `<mark>`, `<sub>`, `<sup>`, `<del>` in HTML, and the matching constructs in AsciiDoc (with strikethrough using the role-based `[.line-through]#...#`, since AsciiDoc has no native syntax for it). Doc comments may now also use the HTML-tag form for these kinds (`<strong>`, `<mark>`, `<del>`, `<s>`, `<sub>`, `<sup>`) alongside the previously-supported `<em>`. This is what most users reach for when they need a tight notation (e.g., `H<sub>2</sub>O`); the Markdown-marker forms (`~text~`, `^text^`, `==text==`, `~~text~~`) require whitespace flanks, which makes compact chemistry/math notation awkward to express. Three other inline kinds (footnote-reference, image, and math) suffer from the same rendering issue but each requires its own non-trivial design decision and is left for separate fixes. Closes issue cppalliance#1185.
35d81dc to
15094a7
Compare
Five kinds of inline markup in doc comments (emphasis, highlight, subscript, superscript, and strikethrough) were not rendered correctly:
Both rendering paths now produce semantically appropriate markup:
<em>,<mark>,<sub>,<sup>,<del>in HTML, and the matching constructs in AsciiDoc (with strikethrough using the role-based[.line-through]#...#, since AsciiDoc has no native syntax for it).Doc comments may now also use the HTML-tag form for these kinds (
<strong>,<mark>,<del>,<s>,<sub>,<sup>) alongside the previously-supported<em>. This is what most users reach for when they need a tight notation (e.g.,H<sub>2</sub>O); the Markdown-marker forms (~text~,^text^,==text==,~~text~~) require whitespace flanks, which makes compact chemistry/math notation awkward to express.Three other inline kinds (footnote-reference, image, and math) suffer from the same rendering issue but each requires its own non-trivial design decision and is left for separate fixes.
Closes issue #1185.