New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
option to disable "tight lists" #475
Comments
Workaround: Typing |
I'm on the other camp. I'd like to never have loose lists. I don't like how the following gets translated with CommonMark: * first 1
* second 1
* first 2
* second 2 I'd like those to be two differrent tight lists instead of being parsed and converted as a single loose list. |
My personal feeling is that having a lot of inconsistent variants is bad for the ecosystem, and that the standardization effort of CommonMark is worthwhile even if people dislike the resulting color of the bike shed. So no, very unlikely we'll add options that change core functionality. A completely different story for extensions, though, as those are quite important, and the CommonMark people are very conservative about bringing those into their fold. Another thought: if you really want this functionality, it should be possible to do it as a postprocessing phase, ie an iterator-to-iterator transformer. Just inject (or delete, as preferences indicate) |
Okay I just realized that putting a I should mention I could definitely respect an only tight lists option too. I think I'd be fine with that. |
Actually the spec is quite clear that |
Actually i'm trying to build an "markdown ast" crate for my own use, and I'm currently working on recovering these paragraph tags from pulldown_cmark result... |
Markdown is... I think it's fair enough to say that it is inconsistent about whether or not it will wrap a list item in a
<p>
. There are rules, but they're not intuitive, for me they aren't lining up with what I want the software to do at all.There doesn't seem to be a way to get it to
<p>
the list list items in lists of one, leading lone list items to look like an inconsistency in the document where the usual padding between sections of text is just mysteriously missing.Clearly what I want is for us to condemn and abandon the standard behaviour as a default, but that doesn't seem to be what this project is about, so I'll instead ask if we'd be alright with a parser option that assumes loose lists in all cases.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: