2

When combining lists with quotes (or spoilers), something strange happens. The following Markdown:

1. > This is the first quote. 2. > This is the second quote.

produces

1.

This is the first quote.

This is the second quote.

so it seems that server-side, the first list item isn't recognized. The previewer doesn't have this problem, as you can also verify by editing this post:

enter image description here

Another example, trying to make quotes part of the list:

1. > This is the first quote. 2. > This is the second quote.

  1. This is the first quote.

  2. This is the second quote.

The preview and end result are the same, but I'm not sure it's semantically correct.

It does seem to work when you add additional content to the list items:

1. A quote follows: > This is the first quote. 2. A quote follows: > This is the second quote.

  1. A quote follows:

    This is the first quote.

  2. A quote follows:

    This is the second quote.

Improve this question
3
  • 1
    This question would be improved if you made the example more clear in the wording as to if you are intending to have the quotes within the list items or not. The Markdown you used implies that you are intending the blockquotes to not be within the two separate ordered lists (with the second ordered list starting with "2"). This is confusing, given that you are starting the second list with "2", which, from a grammar POV, generally would imply that everything between the "1" and "2" should really be within the "1" list item. Commented Nov 10 at 17:32
  • As the source Markdown is, the previewer gets this correct, per CommonMark, in that it creates two, separate, ordered lists <ol></ol>, with the second being <ol start="2">, each with a blank <li></li>, in addition to two <blockquote> elements, with neither <blockquote> within either <ol>. Commented Nov 10 at 17:32
  • Thanks for the feedback. I posted the bug because I noticed it after using, IMHO, natural content in the Puzzling.SE answer. I could have used 'Puzzle 1', 'Puzzle 2' instead of '1.' and '2.', and if none of the list headers would've been recognized, that would be acceptable to me. It's just the difference that irks me (a little bit). Commented Nov 10 at 17:50

0

Reset to default

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.