list corner case

[Aristotle Pagaltzis]

* John MacFarlane <jgm at berkeley.edu> [2008-09-08 03:25]:

> I'm curious how people think the following *should* be interpreted:

> 

> -  one

> 2. two


For the purpose of the argument I’ll expand a little with more
realistically likely examples:

*  foo
*  bar
1. baz
2. quux
*  qux

-  foo
-  bar
1. baz
1. quux
-  qux

In those examples I see the 3rd and 4th items as having an
implied relationship that is stronger than among the rest of the
items, but I do not see those two as subordinate to the 2nd item.
Any inferred nesting would have to subordinate them to an implied
3rd item in the surrounding unordered list that is not written
out in these examples – semantically equivalent roughly to this:

-  foo
-  bar
-
   1. baz
   1. quux
-  qux

Therefore, I would say these should be rendered as either three
separate lists or as a single unordered list, but definitely not
as an unordered list with an ordered list nested inside its 2nd
item.

Regards,
-- 
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>