> Considering the first line of this example in the spec says "this is > a blockquote with two paragraphs" and that it follows a non-lazy > example where all this text is part of a single blockquote, I > wouldn't consider the spec ambiguous. The Markdown syntax description > is ambiguous about a lot of things, but not about this one. > > Most Markdown implementations, but not all, do it as Markdown.pl: > <http://babelmark.bobtfish.net/?markdown=%3E++This+is+one+blockquote+with%0D%0A+++a+long+line.%0D%0A%0D%0A%3E++This+is+another+blockquote%0D%0A+++with+a+long+line.%0D%0A&normalize=on&src=1> > > This isn't a disapproval of how you're planning to do things. I just > wanted to make it clear that your last example with two consecutive > blockquoted paragraphs is clearly a single blocquote per the Markdown > syntax description.
This example was explicitly mentioned because the behaviour of kramdown will most probably differ from the one of Markdown.pl and this behaviour wasn't stated anywhere in the syntax description itself, just in the example (the text of which I have to admit I didn't read). -- Thomas _______________________________________________ Markdown-Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
