As I said in the posts I linked to on your issue, the principle of uniformity is the main thing that sways me towards allowing lists to interrupt paragraphs. The meaning of a text should not change when you put it in a list item.
So, if this is not a list:
then it should not be a list when you put it in a list item:
I see your reasoning, and don’t doubt that this pattern is indeed “common practice”—even thought I wouldn’t use or recommend it, if only for the simple reason that it is highly “non-portable”.
However, allowing any line that “looks like” a list item to interrupt any old paragraph in the CommonMark syntax, for the sole purpose that:
Now with CommonMark it will be!
seems a bit far-reaching in my point of view: in particular it introduces a whole range of possibilities to “inadvertently” have list items recognized inside a paragraph where none are intended—I think this is a well-known problem in cases like:
Stuff that I
- nor anyone else -
would never write in the
Situations like this (admittedly contrived) example do occur in practice when paragraph text gets re-formatted. I for one have turned to using NBSP to make it clear (for the formatter, and for CommonMark) that “-~” and “1.~” are “just text” and in no way list item markers [the tilde “~” here stands for my use of NBSP]. But I don’t think this is a common way of writing CommonMark, nor that it should be.
Is there any chance to “tighten” the syntax rules in a way that
your example is still recognized as a list, but
my example is not?
Maybe by recognizing that your example matches the pattern
the first line in the block is a “vanilla line”,
each subsequent line is a “list item” line,
while mine does not?
Or would it be too “extreme” to require additional markup for your example to work, like (off he top of my head and for illustration only):
or, as had been mentioned elsewhere, maybe detect a COLON at the end of the first line in a block, and use this to “enable” list items in your example:
This would obviously much simpler to implement (and to explain, IMO!) that the “pattern-matching” convention above.
And a “COLON at the end of the first line in a block” is, I think, unlikely to be left there inadvertently as a result of re-flowing a paragraph (though not impossible, but in any case easier to see and to fix than having to eyeball every line start in the re-flowed paragraph …).
Any thoughts on this (old topic!)—or is it simply “just too late”?