# Enumerated lists without explicit number, ATX headings with explicit number

**URL:** <https://talk.commonmark.org/t/enumerated-lists-without-explicit-number-atx-headings-with-explicit-number/1951>\
**Category:** Spec\
**Created:** [January 2, 2016, 10:38am UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/enumerated-lists-without-explicit-number-atx-headings-with-explicit-number/1951 "2016-01-02T10:38:49Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 7

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tin-pot](https://talk.commonmark.org/user_avatar/talk.commonmark.org/tin-pot/32/810_2.png) [@tin-pot](https://talk.commonmark.org/u/tin-pot)\
**Post date:** [January 2, 2016, 7:04pm UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/enumerated-lists-without-explicit-number-atx-headings-with-explicit-number/1951/7 "2016-01-02T19:04:21Z")

</div>

> [@Crissov](#):
>
> It’s just as counter-intuitive to use 0 for the third or seventeenth item as would be 1.

Okay, so your position is—correct me if I’m wrong:

1. Using "`0)`&nbsp;" or "`1.`&nbsp;" is counter-intuitive,
2. while "`)`&nbsp;" or "`.`&nbsp;" is (somehow) intuitive enough;
3. but typing the _correct_ individual numeral is too much work in any case,
4. and there are no tools available or even imaginable to do so,
5. therefore the _CommonMark_ syntax should be changed.

I can’t answer anything (reasonable) to that …

[And note that I just did the seemingly impossible, and **did** type “⎵1.⎵”, “⎵2.⎵”, “⎵3.⎵”, “⎵4.⎵”, and “⎵5.⎵” into my browser’s shabby text area box: thats **five** different numbers! 😜]

_Obviously,_ “⎵” _is meant to represent SPACE._

* * *

As far as I can tell from your explanation of what you mean by “attributes” (and I _guess_ that “MD/CM” means “Markdown/CommonMark”, not [“1500/900”](http://romannumerals.babuo.com/roman-numerals-1-5000), right? 😉 ), it seems that `attribute` is first of all the name of a non-terminal in your grammar; and if I understand correctly, you then go on and say that _the matching sub-string_ for this production (ie, the `alphanum*`) is the value of this “anonymous attribute”?

And I _guess_ that by “line marker” you must must mean a (missing) non-terminal, possibly like this:

```
line: line-marker content? suffix? trailing?;
line-marker: indent? prefix?

```

Now your grammar’s `prefix` production obviously generates the strings “`.`⎵” and “`)`⎵”, but in an ambiguous way:

- either `attribute` is missing (it is marked by `?` as always being optional),
- or `attribute` is there, but matches an empty sequence of `alphanum` – (which I _guess_ is the usual character class).

I have no idea what the undefined `phrase` could be, except that it ought to contain the important stuff.

* * *

All in all I honestly fail to see your point here: if the _CommonMark_ specification and your grammar (or parser) disagree: why should the former need to change?

Btw, I’m actually interested in a (context-free or not) grammar that could _correctly_ define _CommonMark_ (and have some unpublished material on this myself), but your grammar so far looks not that similar to what I would expect.

---

_[View the full topic](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/enumerated-lists-without-explicit-number-atx-headings-with-explicit-number/1951)._