* John MacFarlane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-09-08 03:25]: > I'm curious how people think the following *should* be interpreted: > > - one > 2. two
For the purpose of the argument I’ll expand a little with more realistically likely examples: * foo * bar 1. baz 2. quux * qux - foo - bar 1. baz 1. quux - qux In those examples I see the 3rd and 4th items as having an implied relationship that is stronger than among the rest of the items, but I do not see those two as subordinate to the 2nd item. Any inferred nesting would have to subordinate them to an implied 3rd item in the surrounding unordered list that is not written out in these examples – semantically equivalent roughly to this: - foo - bar - 1. baz 1. quux - qux Therefore, I would say these should be rendered as either three separate lists or as a single unordered list, but definitely not as an unordered list with an ordered list nested inside its 2nd item. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/> _______________________________________________ Markdown-Discuss mailing list Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
