# Ordered lists and sublist starts

**URL:** <https://talk.commonmark.org/t/ordered-lists-and-sublist-starts/3693>\
**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:** 1\
**Showing post:** 9

<div class="post-metadata">

**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")

</div>

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…

---

_[View the full topic](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/ordered-lists-and-sublist-starts/3693)._