Pipe character (|) for <aside>

[zzzzBov]

>>> won’t work without compromising triply nested blockquotes:

example

Certainly it’s unlikely people would want to use triply nested blockquotes, but I see no reason to introduce a conflict in that regard.

@Crissov

It may become tricky with tables, though, because you probably couldn’T use a literal | inside an aside without it being treated as a table instead.

My understanding of the proposed pipe-based table specs is that they require | prefix and | suffix.

| table example |

whereas the <aside> proposal wouldn’t have | suffixes

| example
| | example

and additionally, literal | characters in an aside would need to be escaped like literal > characters in a blockquote:

> example \>

| example \|

and given the table specs using \ to escape the | would remain consistent.

I admit the duplication of use of the | character could run into trouble with tables, and any extension specifications would have to keep compatibility with other extensions in mind.