Chris Sewell

This is a core limitation of commonmark I'm afraid; reference definitions have to be parsed before reference links:: https://github.com/commonmark/commonmark-spec/issues/702 (this behaviour is different to rST So it's non-trivial to change...

I think its a slippery slop, starting to special case treating lexer names as directives in core; what, for example, if you actually want to just syntax highlight the raw...

FYI, I would strongly suggest you guys also help https://github.com/mgaitan/sphinxcontrib-mermaid/issues/109 get fixed. For now I think I will take this extension out of the MyST parser documentation, because its killing...

field lists are now available: https://myst-parser.readthedocs.io/en/latest/syntax/optional.html#field-lists I don't intend to add option lists, though obviously others are welcome to try

Hey @hukkin, I think to move forward on this, could you first extract a separate PR that just does all the *non-controversial* changes, that just internally switch comparisons from ords...

Superseded by [f52249e](https://github.com/executablebooks/markdown-it-py/commit/f52249e1c26c7e66c8504848f582fcd3de85ab3d) I added you as co-author, hope that's ok!

Myst's `include` now supports an `offset-heading` option https://myst-parser.readthedocs.io/en/latest/syntax/organising_content.html#inserting-other-documents-directly-into-the-current-document > maybe there should be a PR submitted to the Sphinx upstream simultaneously so that it's consistent between RST and MD. Others...

> > As another issue, I cannot figure out how to suppress the reference warnings in the meantime - we now have hundreds of them. > > For anyone looking...

In light of https://github.com/executablebooks/myst-enhancement-proposals/pull/10, I think this can be closed, or at least it should be moved to a discussion in the spec

To do this "properly" you really need access to a latex parser. I have seen any python libraries able to do this at present. Happy for anyone to let me...