# Inconsistency as it “does not collapse adjacent bird-track blocks”

**URL:** <https://talk.commonmark.org/t/inconsistency-as-it-does-not-collapse-adjacent-bird-track-blocks/58>\
**Category:** Spec\
**Created:** [September 3, 2014, 8:10pm UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/inconsistency-as-it-does-not-collapse-adjacent-bird-track-blocks/58 "2014-09-03T20:10:47Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![poke](https://talk.commonmark.org/user_avatar/talk.commonmark.org/poke/32/39_2.png) [@poke](https://talk.commonmark.org/u/poke)\
**Post date:** [September 3, 2014, 8:10pm UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/inconsistency-as-it-does-not-collapse-adjacent-bird-track-blocks/58/1 "2014-09-03T20:10:47Z")

</div>

As said in [What changed in Standard Markdown?](http://talk.commonmark.org/t/what-changed-in-standard-markdown/15), adjacent `>` quote blocks are not collapsed into a single blockquote. So this creates two separate blockquotes:

```
> Foo

> bar

```

While I appreciate the idea of giving the author more choice (as described in the spec: _“But it seems better to allow the author to decide whether two block quotes or one are wanted”_), I do see this as an inconsistency when compared to code blocks though. After all, this creates a single code block:

```
    Foo

    bar

```

(Note that there are _no_ trailing spaces in the second line)

I understand that it’s difficult to compare these two cases since there is no dedicated character to mark the code block (except the indentation), so an empty row with just trailing spaces would be undesirable anyway, but I still dislike this inconsistent behavior. Not that I know how we could solve it…