On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 9:24 PM, John MacFarlane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm curious how people think the following *should* be interpreted: > > - one > 2. two >
Personally, I would prefer C. For what it's worth, I'm also one of the few that seems to think anything less than 4 spaces of indentation should be ignored in the list syntax - but that's another discussion we've already had. I'm just saying that may be part of the reason why I completely rule out option B. Given the general lack of polarity of my opinion on the indentation issue, I'm guessing most wouldn't like C for the same reason, even if it is the only way *my* brain parses that list. Although I seem to recall talk in the past about the following: 1. foo - bar - baz Where the first item sets the list as ordered, and the rest just defines the items. The argument made was that the author could then reorder, insert or delete any random item without feeling the need to renumber the items. Personally, I'm the type that's going to renumber the items anyway, but I suspect that's why option A is the most popular among current implementations. I realize the actual numbering is irrelevant to an ordered list, as long as the numbers are there, but it's about what's more readable and I suppose out-of-order numbering is less readable to some than the above mixed list. Readability really is the issue here and for those that don't want to so strictly enforce indentation I can see how option B looks logical, but for the above to work, then the converse also needs to work (perhaps not technically - but for consistency) which forces us to only accept option A - even if it's not my personal favorite. -- ---- Waylan Limberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Markdown-Discuss mailing list Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss