Block quotes with a blank line between them get merged

[Waylan Limberg]

On 10/18/06, Jacob Rus <jrus at hcs.harvard.edu> wrote:

> John Gruber wrote:

> > I think two blank lines should break one out of a list:

> >

> >     *   First first

> >     *   First second

> >     *   First third

> >

> >

> >     *   Second first

> >     *   Second second

> >

> > I.e. that should be two lists, not one.

> >

> > This idea is also intertwined with the idea that there should be

> > an alternate explicit syntax for code blocks, though, because

> > otherwise what would happen if you were making a list where one of

> > the items contained a code block with two blank lines?

>

> That's easy; the user will remember to add spaces (or tabs) up to the

> indent which starts a code block.  For instance (where I'm highlighting

> spaces with a drawn glyph.  Interpret those as " ":

>

>      This is some example markdown with blank lines in code blocks:

>

>        * First first

>        * First second

>

>          First second has some paragraphs inside

>

>          ␣␣␣␣a = {"and", "some", "code", "blocks"}

>          ␣␣␣␣

>          ␣␣␣␣

>          ␣␣␣␣b = {"and", "some", "blank", "lines", "in", "those"}

>

>        * First third

>

>          ␣␣␣␣c = {"more", "random", "monospaced", "stuff"}

>

>          ␣␣␣␣d = {"this", "one", "starts", "a", "new",

>          ␣␣␣␣     "code block", "as there was a line before",

>          ␣␣␣␣     "it", "without the requisite code block", "indent"}

>

>

>        * Second first (note that the previous two lines are very empty)

>

> I think that this interpretation is the logical (unambiguous, strict)

> interpretation of the official markdown spec.  In other words, if you

> intend to continue a code block, just keep the indent going.  If you

> intend to end it, then stop indenting.  Blank lines within the code

> block are then no problem.

>

> Incidentally, I don't think that we need any more explicit symbolic

> marker for code blocks.  One of the things I most like about markdown's

> syntax is that a simple indentation puts us into a code block, without

> any unnecessary clutter.

>


Now that you mention it, I remember thinking it should work that way
the first time I encountered the problem. Unfortunetly it does not in
any implementation that I am aware of.

Additionaly, we have the issue that the whitespace is not visable to
the editor/writer which could make it difficult for document
editors/writers to debug display problems. that said, it still makes
sense to me.


-- 
----
Waylan Limberg
waylan at gmail.com