numbered list bug in

A. Pagaltzis pagaltzis at
Wed Jul 12 23:45:37 EDT 2006

* Michel Fortin <michel.fortin at> [2006-07-13 03:50]:

> For example would yeild two sublists:


> 1. List item

> 10. Sublist item

> 20. List item

> 2. Sublist item

That is hard to parse even visually for a human. I think
requiring more indentation won’t make Markdown unduly harder to
write but it will definitely make documents more readable.

> But how is the second sublist item different from the first

> 1-10-20-2 example of this post:


> 1. List item

> 10. List item

> 20. List item

> 2. List item

There is no previous item with a smaller indent.

But there is no way to avoid creating a nested list for the last
item in this example, and to me, the vertical alignment would
clearly indicates that the author did not intend that to happen.

> Personally, I'd go the route of requiring an increasing

> character count for numeric markers when they are right-aligned

> because I think it is the less damaging thing to do to current

> Markdown text and because it makes sense visually.

Seems like the wrong fix to me. I have a bunch of documents which
rely on the fact that I can number my lists any way I like. After
all, it has always been a deliberate feature. To break something
that you explicitly allowed previously seem, well, not like the
smartest move.

But I don’t have documents any that rely on tiny indentation to
mark up nested lists. There is nothing in the docs that specifies
the behaviour of this case in detail. In fact I was surprised by
the actual behaviour.

So I would argue that there is room to tweak the indentation
rules, but none to tweak the numbering requirements. I would
instead suggest that to start a nested list, the marker be
required to be indented at least three spaces more than the
preceeding item.

Aristotle Pagaltzis // <>

More information about the Markdown-Discuss mailing list