commonmark
Example 62 needs clarification
Hello, Example 62 says
The setext heading underline cannot be a lazy continuation line in a list item or block quote:
But the example seems to contradict that:
> foo
bar
===
gives
<blockquote>
<p>foo
bar
===</p>
</blockquote>
But shouldn't the === start a new paragraph? Am I missing something?
The line === is a lazy continuation line in the
block quote. That is why it doesn't make bar into a setext header.
Hi, thanks for the reply. But doesn't what you say contradict the spec:
The setext heading underline cannot be a lazy continuation line in a list item or block quote:
?
No, there is no heading underline. There are just three equality signs which do not form the heading exactly because of the rule you are quoting.
Since it is no heading underline, it is a normal line of text. With dashes instead, it could be a bullet list or thematic break as well, but with equals signs, the possibilities end there.
@jgm
If you read just the rule
The setext heading underline cannot be a lazy continuation line in a list item or block quote
then you can interpret it indeed in two ways, if you are inside a blockquote and you see a line === (without leading >):
- you should enforce ending of the blockquote so that you can see the
===as a heading underline; or - you should degrade the equality signs and see them as ordinary chars.
Of course the example 62 says the 2nd interpretation is the right one.
But I remember that when I was implementing MD4C, it took me also some time to understand it. Maybe this issue shows human mind can easily choose the wrong interpretation 1 and then just see the example 62 in a prejudiced semi-blind way, as just something different then expected after reading the rule, ergo concluding there is something wrong with the specs.
Maybe some clarification of the rule should be considered?