# Ordered lists and sublist starts **URL:** \ **Category:** Spec\ **Created:** [November 11, 2020, 10:46pm UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/ordered-lists-and-sublist-starts/3693 "2020-11-11T22:46:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![jackdw](https://cdn.commonmark.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v2/letter/j/51bf81/32.png) [@jackdw](https://talk.commonmark.org/u/jackdw)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2020, 10:46pm UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/ordered-lists-and-sublist-starts/3693/1 "2020-11-11T22:46:06Z")
Looking through the posts on this, I am feeling a bit confused as to what the correct thing is regarding ordered sublists, and the reasoning behind them. Given this Markdown ```auto 1. one 1. one-A 2. two 2. two-A 3. three ``` CommonMark (0.29.2 via Babelmark2) gives me the output I would expect: ```auto
  1. one
    1. one-A
  2. two
    1. two-A
  3. three
``` To be clear, this makes perfect sense to me. I typed in 3 list items for the first list, and 2 sublists, one for each of the first two items. To me, this is obvious. It is when i change the Markdown that I have an issue: ```auto 1. one 1. one-A 2. two 2. two-A 3. three ``` From a obvious point of view, I am now starting the second sublist at 2 instead of 1. In the case where I am providing editing notes for a friend, who often types in lists and sublists for her first draft, this is a perfectly legit notation. I am deliberately skipping the first item in the second list as I do not have any comments on the first item of her second list. Unless I am missing something obvious, to me this is the most reasonable interpretation of this Markdown. This conflicts with the output for this which is: ```auto
  1. one
    1. one-A
  2. two 2. two-A
  3. three
``` I did follow the conversations about the second sublist and paragraphs from other posts, but can someone please provide a good example of how this output is a more reasonable interpretation of the list I type in than having a second sublist starting at 2? ---
**Author:** ![jackdw](https://cdn.commonmark.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v2/letter/j/51bf81/32.png) [@jackdw](https://talk.commonmark.org/u/jackdw)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2020, 10:56pm UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/ordered-lists-and-sublist-starts/3693/2 "2020-11-11T22:56:50Z")
Additional piece of information. In going through some more tests, came across this, which does parse the way I would expect it: ```auto 1. 2. foo ``` ---
**Author:** ![mity](https://cdn.commonmark.org/user_avatar/talk.commonmark.org/mity/32/1040_2.png) [@mity](https://talk.commonmark.org/u/mity)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2020, 9:45am UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/ordered-lists-and-sublist-starts/3693/3 "2020-11-12T09:45:28Z")
The both markdown examples in the original post look same, maybe a copy&paste error? ---
**Author:** ![jackdw](https://cdn.commonmark.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v2/letter/j/51bf81/32.png) [@jackdw](https://talk.commonmark.org/u/jackdw)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2020, 4:36am UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/ordered-lists-and-sublist-starts/3693/4 "2020-11-13T04:36:57Z")
Good catch, and to think I double checked it before posting. The first example should be: ```auto 1. one 1. one-A 2. two 1. two-A 3. three ``` ---
**Author:** ![Crissov](https://cdn.commonmark.org/user_avatar/talk.commonmark.org/crissov/32/1455_2.png) [@Crissov](https://talk.commonmark.org/u/Crissov)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2020, 9:41am UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/ordered-lists-and-sublist-starts/3693/5 "2020-11-13T09:41:12Z")
[spec](https://spec.commonmark.org/0.29/#list-items): > Exceptions: > > 1. When the first list item in a [list](https://spec.commonmark.org/0.29/#list) interrupts a paragraph—that is, when it starts on a line that would otherwise count as [paragraph continuation text](https://spec.commonmark.org/0.29/#paragraph-continuation-text)—then > (a) the lines _Ls_ must not begin with a blank line, and > (b) if the list item is ordered, the start number must be 1. This is trying to avoid parsing arbitrary numbers followed by a period at the start of a line as list items. In some languages, this is standard for ordinal numbers and therefore occurs frequently in dates, e.g. “12. November” in German. ---
**Author:** ![jackdw](https://cdn.commonmark.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v2/letter/j/51bf81/32.png) [@jackdw](https://talk.commonmark.org/u/jackdw)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2020, 8:13pm UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/ordered-lists-and-sublist-starts/3693/6 "2020-11-13T20:13:25Z")
That is a good case. My question is more geared towards whether or not it makes sense rather than “is it in the spec” So, if I understand correctly: ```auto 1. my list 2. my sub-list ``` is interpreted as `2. my sub-list` is an extension of the paragraph started in the main list item `1. my list` and not the start or a sub-list. Based on another part of the spec, as an indented code block cannot interrupt a paragraph, it would not be interpreted as an indented code block, but as an extension of the first paragraph. So from a specification point of view, as it is written, I think this is solid. My question is more around whether or not this fulfils the goal of “readable as-is”. While I agree that having the above `2. my sub-list` could fall into that category of “it may be”, the most obvious reading to me is that it is a sub-list. I guess I am trying to open a conversation about readability. For me, if it looks like a list, it should act like a list. To me, regardless of any other concern, that Markdown code snippet looks like a list with a sub-list, regardless of what the starting numbers are. Hoping for some good conversation on this… ---
**Author:** ![jackdw](https://cdn.commonmark.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v2/letter/j/51bf81/32.png) [@jackdw](https://talk.commonmark.org/u/jackdw)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2020, 3:45am UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/ordered-lists-and-sublist-starts/3693/7 "2020-11-14T03:45:19Z")
Back to the one example I added after the original: ```auto 1. 2. abc ``` this gets parsed as: ```auto
    1. abc
``` I do understand the Exceptions that Crissov posted, but it seems weird to me that having both numbers on the same line is honored, but starting the inner list on a newline is not. It just seems inconsistent to me. Just to be clear, I am not arguing for the sake or arguing, just trying to understand things better. ---
**Author:** ![vas](https://cdn.commonmark.org/user_avatar/talk.commonmark.org/vas/32/1267_2.png) [@vas](https://talk.commonmark.org/u/vas)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2020, 7:56am UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/ordered-lists-and-sublist-starts/3693/8 "2020-11-14T07:56:25Z")
> To me, regardless of any other concern, that Markdown code snippet looks like a list with a sub-list, regardless of what the starting numbers are. That’s only true for your specific example. Consider: ```auto 1. The project risked missing its deadline of March 13. A meeting was called. 2. The architect would take flight 457. It was the red eye. 3. She would stay at the Hilton, room 22. It had an ocean view. ``` In other words, it’s obvious to humans. So until we can incorporate AI into the markdown parser, we have to settle for an imperfect heuristic. ---
**Author:** ![Crissov](https://cdn.commonmark.org/user_avatar/talk.commonmark.org/crissov/32/1455_2.png) [@Crissov](https://talk.commonmark.org/u/Crissov)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2020, 3:20pm UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/ordered-lists-and-sublist-starts/3693/9 "2020-11-14T15:20:08Z")
I think this was the last thread on the topic, which also discusses several alternatives: > [@Blank lines before lists, revisited](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/blank-lines-before-lists-revisited/1990/22): > > To weigh in on the proposals: (1) (single-digit start numbers) seems okay to me. It might fix some practical problems (and might cause some others). On the other hand, even with this fix we’d have a mismatch between parser behavior and the spec of the sort described in commonmark/cmark#204. (3) is bad for the reason I just gave in my previous post. One-item lists are, in general, useful, so we don’t want to rule them out altogether. I suppose we could require at least two items when t… ---
**Author:** ![jgm](https://cdn.commonmark.org/user_avatar/talk.commonmark.org/jgm/32/1360_2.png) [@jgm](https://talk.commonmark.org/u/jgm)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2020, 11:55pm UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/ordered-lists-and-sublist-starts/3693/10 "2020-11-14T23:55:52Z")
This is definitely a rough edge, and I’m not 100% happy with the solution we currently have. > [@Blank lines before lists, revisited](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/blank-lines-before-lists-revisited/1990/22): > > To weigh in on the proposals: (1) (single-digit start numbers) seems okay to me. It might fix some practical problems (and might cause some others). On the other hand, even with this fix we’d have a mismatch between parser behavior and the spec of the sort described in commonmark/cmark#204. (3) is bad for the reason I just gave in my previous post. One-item lists are, in general, useful, so we don’t want to rule them out altogether. I suppose we could require at least two items when t… If we were inventing a light markup language from scratch, I’d want to require a blank line before a list or sublist (see [Beyond Markdown](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/beyond-markdown/2787)), for this and many other reasons. But we’re not, so we need to find a compromise that works.