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
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:
<ol>
<li>one
<ol>
<li>one-A</li>
</ol>
</li>
<li>two
<ol>
<li>two-A</li>
</ol>
</li>
<li>three</li>
</ol>
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:
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:
<ol>
<li>one
<ol>
<li>one-A</li>
</ol>
</li>
<li>two
2. two-A</li>
<li>three</li>
</ol>
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?