Martin Mitáš

Oops. You are right. Still I am not sure about it. Although it is artificial example, consider trying to make `xxx` bold in `xxx(`. Note that escaping can help you...

Also, when I return to the original report, I might want as well to make bold the text span before and/or after the link: ``` **foo**[bar](#)baz foo[bar](#)**baz** **foo**[bar](#)**baz** ```

Also note there is yet another inconsistency: While links cannot be nested in each other, an autolink on the other side is allowed to be nested in the link text....

The 1st thing I'd like to highlight is that IMHO using the entities should **never ever** be usable as an alternative Markdown syntax construction. I.e. e.g. `*foo*` is like `\*foo\*`...

> I'm inclined to suggest entities should be treated as opaque for the purposes of determining flankingness, especially because we refuse to interpret them as Markdown structural elements. It seems...

I spent an hour or two thinking about this issue. And to be honest, I am still very indecisive in this case. I see good arguments for both ways. Maybe...

Well, yes. But the tab char is ASCII. The specification does not demand recognition of other white-space characters with code-points >= 128 for the line indentation, right?

Maybe this issue can be seen better from a different perspective. At least I have always found using the left-flanking and right-flanking terms confusing and I always easily got lost...

For blocks, the info is also quite scattered, but imho it is much easier to put in some words then the inlines. Probably because different inlines are analyzed quite differently...

> You should parse code spans and autolinks and html tags in the same pass anyway MD4C parses those at the same time. It uses three steps as follows: 1....