I've rewritten the code block grammar in the Markdown Extra [spec][]
to match what Markdown.pl and PHP Markdown do. It should now handle
things such as this:
~~~
> One
Two
> Three
Four
Five
~~~
as one blockquote containing only one code block with five lines,
equivalent to this one (using fenced code blocks instead for clarity):
~~~
> One
> Two
>
> Three
> Four
Five
~~~
I'm wondering though if code blocks shouldn't force a
"non-lazy"
syntax, which would mean yielding a result identical to this instead:
~~~
> One
Two
> Three
Four
Five
~~~
Thoughts?
[spec]: <http://michelf.com/specs/markdown-extra/#block-element-generator
>
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin at michelf.com
http://michelf.com/
Your first two examples are not treated as the same by any implementation. It seems that all implementations interprete this: ~~~> OneTwo> ThreeFour Five ~~~ as meaning that "One" is in a code block, but "Two" is not. Or did you mean to put a few more spaces in front of "Two"?> [spec]: <http://michelf.com/specs/markdown-extra/#block-element-generator>I think it would help if the spec maked it more clear what part of each line of the blockquote is consumed before we go looking for sub-elements, especially as far as consuming initial whitespace goes. - yuri -- http://sputnik.freewisdom.org/
> I'm wondering though if code blocks shouldn't force a "non-lazy" syntax, > which would mean yielding a result identical to this instead:I'd say no. It's unlikely that anyone's going to combine lazy blockquote syntax with code blocks anyway, but if they do, it seems to me that they ought to expect the lazy syntax to work in the usual way. John