Combination of blockquote and list inconsistency

[dikmax]

Two examples, they differ only in space after >.

1. (dingus)

>1. > asdf
>   > sdfg

2. (dingus)

> 1. > asdf
>    > sdfg

But first renders as:

<blockquote>
<ol>
<li>
<blockquote>
<p>asdf</p>
</blockquote>
</li>
</ol>
<blockquote>
<p>sdfg</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>

and second

<blockquote>
<ol>
<li>
<blockquote>
<p>asdf
sdfg</p>
</blockquote>
</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>

I'm not sure, which output is better, but I think it should be same in both cases.

[jgm]

Spec says:

Basic case. If a string of lines Ls constitute a sequence of blocks Bs, then the result of prepending a block quote marker to the beginning of each line in Ls is a block quote containing Bs.

So, the question to ask yourself is: could you get

>1. > asdf
>   > sdfg

by appending a block quote marker to the beginning of each line in

1. > asdf
   > sdfg

And the answer is "no," though perhaps some changes to the spec could clarify this. You can get the first line

>1. > asdf

by adding a block quote marker to the beginning of the line, but you can't get the second line, because a block quote marker is either a > that is NOT followed by a space, or a > + SPACE. Thus, in

>   > sdfg

the block quote marker is > (> + SPACE), and the content inside it is only indented two spaces, not three.

[aidantwoods]

A parser I'm producing based off the specification produces gives the same result.

That to say, the current behaviour does honour the specification IMO

That said, given that understanding this difference requires understanding that the blockquote marker actually includes a space – I think this result is horribly unintuitive.

Perhaps there could be some discussion on requiring that subsequent blockquote lines opportunistically utilise the same marker (either > or >•) as the most recent previously valid "item", much like lists do.

Edit: Upon reconsideration the specification is ambiguous, I've made assumptions in my implementation not given in the specification

[jgm]

+++ Aidan Woods [Apr 12 17 10:37 ]:

Perhaps there could be some discussion on requiring that subsequent blockquote lines opportunistically utilise the same marker (either > or >•) as the most recent previously valid "item", much like lists do.

I think this is a good idea to explore. It would allow blockquotes like this one to work as before. And I would not anticipate much breakage in existing documents if a change like this were made.

[aidantwoods]

Although this method wouldn't be entirely consistent with the approach I gave here I think it should probably work almost identically – seeing as blocks like lists are allowed to casually recede in their indentation so

> 1. a
>2. b

Would be interpreted the same as

> 1. a
> 2. b

and the same as

>1. a
>2. b

The only possible (writer) ambiguity I can see with this opportunistic approach is that is:

>    1. a
>2. b

(minimal marker)

<blockquote>
<pre><code>1. a
</code></pre>
<ol start="2">
<li>b</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>

or
(opportunistic)

<blockquote>
<ol>
<li>a</li>
<li>b</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>