I guess you're right. I'll leave it in for now, so as not to confuse people trying to follow this discussion, but add a note that points to your post.
+++ Waylan Limberg [Oct 24 12 23:23 ]: > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 9:22 PM, John MacFarlane <[email protected]> wrote: > > See question 6 here: > > http://johnmacfarlane.net/babelmark2/faq.html#what-are-some-big-questions-that-the-markdown-spec-does-not-answer > > > > And note that pandoc allows you to create two blockquotes if > > you leave blank space between, > > > > Which is clearly in violation of the syntax rules [1]. According to > the rules, these two examples are to produce the exact same output: > > ~~~ > > This is a blockquote with two paragraphs. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, > > consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aliquam hendrerit mi posuere lectus. > > Vestibulum enim wisi, viverra nec, fringilla in, laoreet vitae, risus. > > > > Donec sit amet nisl. Aliquam semper ipsum sit amet velit. Suspendisse > > id sem consectetuer libero luctus adipiscing. > ~~~ > > and > > ~~~ > > This is a blockquote with two paragraphs. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, > consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aliquam hendrerit mi posuere lectus. > Vestibulum enim wisi, viverra nec, fringilla in, laoreet vitae, risus. > > > Donec sit amet nisl. Aliquam semper ipsum sit amet velit. Suspendisse > id sem consectetuer libero luctus adipiscing. > ~~~ > > Note that the first sentence of each example states that that entire > example "... is **a** blockquote with two paragraphs" (emphasis > added). That states explicitly that it must be interpreted as one > blockquote. There is no other interpretation. Pandoc is simply wrong > here (even in strict mode - using the above examples from the rules) > and I would suggest that John M. should remove that question from his > FAQ. Or at least move it to the "divergences between implementations" > section. There is no "big question" on this issue. > > As an aside, after seeing John list this as a "big question" I reread > the rules and initially thought it might be a valid question. Other > than implying (but not explicitly stating) that the two examples > should produce the exact same output, I didn't see any indication in > the main text explicitly stating that the second example should > produce one blockquote. Only after rereading a second time did I > notice that this part of the rule is explicitly stated in the example > itself - and only in the example. My point is, it is easy to miss, but > that doesn't mean its not part of the rule - or that it can be > interpreted in multiple ways. > > [1]: http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax#blockquote > > -- > ---- > \X/ /-\ `/ |_ /-\ |\| > Waylan Limberg > _______________________________________________ > Markdown-Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss _______________________________________________ Markdown-Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
