On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 9:22 PM, John MacFarlane <j...@berkeley.edu> wrote: > See question 6 here: > http://johnmacfarlane.net/babelmark2/faq.html#what-are-some-big-questions-that-the-markdown-spec-does-not-answer > > And note that pandoc allows you to create two blockquotes if > you leave blank space between, >
Which is clearly in violation of the syntax rules [1]. According to the rules, these two examples are to produce the exact same output: ~~~ > This is a blockquote with two paragraphs. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, > consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aliquam hendrerit mi posuere lectus. > Vestibulum enim wisi, viverra nec, fringilla in, laoreet vitae, risus. > > Donec sit amet nisl. Aliquam semper ipsum sit amet velit. Suspendisse > id sem consectetuer libero luctus adipiscing. ~~~ and ~~~ > This is a blockquote with two paragraphs. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aliquam hendrerit mi posuere lectus. Vestibulum enim wisi, viverra nec, fringilla in, laoreet vitae, risus. > Donec sit amet nisl. Aliquam semper ipsum sit amet velit. Suspendisse id sem consectetuer libero luctus adipiscing. ~~~ Note that the first sentence of each example states that that entire example "... is **a** blockquote with two paragraphs" (emphasis added). That states explicitly that it must be interpreted as one blockquote. There is no other interpretation. Pandoc is simply wrong here (even in strict mode - using the above examples from the rules) and I would suggest that John M. should remove that question from his FAQ. Or at least move it to the "divergences between implementations" section. There is no "big question" on this issue. As an aside, after seeing John list this as a "big question" I reread the rules and initially thought it might be a valid question. Other than implying (but not explicitly stating) that the two examples should produce the exact same output, I didn't see any indication in the main text explicitly stating that the second example should produce one blockquote. Only after rereading a second time did I notice that this part of the rule is explicitly stated in the example itself - and only in the example. My point is, it is easy to miss, but that doesn't mean its not part of the rule - or that it can be interpreted in multiple ways. [1]: http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax#blockquote -- ---- \X/ /-\ `/ |_ /-\ |\| Waylan Limberg _______________________________________________ Markdown-Discuss mailing list Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
