John Gruber wrote:
I think two blank lines should break one out of a list:
* First first
* First second
* First third
* Second first
* Second second
I.e. that should be two lists, not one.
This idea is also intertwined with the idea that there should be
an alternate explicit syntax for code blocks, though, because
otherwise what would happen if you were making a list where one of
the items contained a code block with two blank lines?
That's easy; the user will remember to add spaces (or tabs) up to the
indent which starts a code block. For instance (where I'm highlighting
spaces with a drawn glyph. Interpret those as " ":
This is some example markdown with blank lines in code blocks:
* First first
* First second
First second has some paragraphs inside
␣␣␣␣a = {"and", "some", "code", "blocks"}
␣␣␣␣
␣␣␣␣
␣␣␣␣b = {"and", "some", "blank", "lines", "in", "those"}
* First third
␣␣␣␣c = {"more", "random", "monospaced", "stuff"}
␣␣␣␣d = {"this", "one", "starts", "a", "new",
␣␣␣␣ "code block", "as there was a line before",
␣␣␣␣ "it", "without the requisite code block", "indent"}
* Second first (note that the previous two lines are very empty)
I think that this interpretation is the logical (unambiguous, strict)
interpretation of the official markdown spec. In other words, if you
intend to continue a code block, just keep the indent going. If you
intend to end it, then stop indenting. Blank lines within the code
block are then no problem.
Incidentally, I don't think that we need any more explicit symbolic
marker for code blocks. One of the things I most like about markdown's
syntax is that a simple indentation puts us into a code block, without
any unnecessary clutter.
-Jacob
_______________________________________________
Markdown-Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
