On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Seumas Mac Uilleachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > david parsons wrote: > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > > Yuri Takhteyev <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> Is it so much work, though, to then change the numbers of just the > >> first two items to "1." and "2."? Note that I am not suggesting that > >> all numbers must be consecutive - just the first two. In fact, I > >> would also throw in the idea of making the numbers themselves optional > >> for all subsequent elements. I.e. the following should be enough: > >> > >> 1. Item one > >> 2. Item two > >> . Item three > >> . Item four > >> . Item five > >> > > > > > > But that's not very readable, is it? > > > > When I look at a list in the source document, I'd expect to see > > a list. I don't know of very many (if any) cases where the > > numbers in the list just sort of trail off and leave every item > > prefixed with a bullet. > > > > > > > It is also hard to distinguish between . for numbered list and - for > bullet list when reading. > >
I agree. Remembering the philosophy that markdown is to be readable first - this doesn't fit. Additionally, Markdown is meant to be a format to write email in, which can later be easily converted to html. I'll never format a list in an email that way, and I doubt anyone else would either. I realize many markdown documents will never be viewed by the public in their raw form, but that's beside the point. The above suggested syntax would just be an excuse for lazy authors and adds no real value IMO. -- ---- Waylan Limberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Markdown-Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
