* Michel Fortin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-13 03:50]: > For example would yeild two sublists: > > 1. List item > 10. Sublist item > 20. List item > 2. Sublist item
That is hard to parse even visually for a human. I think requiring more indentation won’t make Markdown unduly harder to write but it will definitely make documents more readable. > But how is the second sublist item different from the first > 1-10-20-2 example of this post: > > 1. List item > 10. List item > 20. List item > 2. List item There is no previous item with a smaller indent. But there is no way to avoid creating a nested list for the last item in this example, and to me, the vertical alignment would clearly indicates that the author did not intend that to happen. > Personally, I'd go the route of requiring an increasing > character count for numeric markers when they are right-aligned > because I think it is the less damaging thing to do to current > Markdown text and because it makes sense visually. Seems like the wrong fix to me. I have a bunch of documents which rely on the fact that I can number my lists any way I like. After all, it has always been a deliberate feature. To break something that you explicitly allowed previously seem, well, not like the smartest move. But I don’t have documents any that rely on tiny indentation to mark up nested lists. There is nothing in the docs that specifies the behaviour of this case in detail. In fact I was surprised by the actual behaviour. So I would argue that there is room to tweak the indentation rules, but none to tweak the numbering requirements. I would instead suggest that to start a nested list, the marker be required to be indented at least three spaces more than the preceeding item. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/> _______________________________________________ Markdown-Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
