Mixed-marker bullet lists

[tin-pot]

@Dmitry

Since the processing agent would be required to inspect the list marker anyway, marker should be required for unordered lists and for list items of both types (numerals normally serve as markers in ordered lists).

Well, there is no unordered_list in CommonMark, at least right now. And as tried to convince you, there probably should not, but instead only one <list> element type.

You mean providing in the marker attribute of the <list> and/or <item> element

• either the “bullet” character, ie “-”, “+”, “*”, etc (in “unordered” <list> and <item> elements);

• or the “number style” or “picture” or “format” (resembling old HTML use), ie “1.”, “a.”, “1)”, “a)” in <list>, and

• the same, but with 1 or a replaced by the appropriate numeral in the value specified for marker in <item> attributes.

That’s a whole lot of changes here …

---

I believe OOD wasn’t very popular back in 1988.

I guess you weren’t around back then: it was the new and hot topic in programming languages, AFAIR.

In 2016 an abstract list type along with ordered_list and unordered_list specializations seems more fitting IMO.

Whatever jargon floats your boat (in “CommonMark.NET”)—but XML it ain’t. And certainly the current year is the last thing a specification is supposed to fit to, IMO.

[ And you do know that OO models with classes can well and cleanly be defined extensional rather than nominal, do you? That was even the case back then in the 80ies! ]