# Strict Markdown subset **URL:** \ **Category:** Spec\ **Created:** [April 20, 2020, 1:41pm UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/strict-markdown-subset/3427 "2020-04-20T13:41:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 5
**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:** [April 23, 2020, 4:12pm UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/strict-markdown-subset/3427/5 "2020-04-23T16:12:32Z")
It’s true that disallowing lazy continuations would simplify creation of parsers. But we have parsers now that handle these things efficiently, and a spec that defines behavior even for crazy things like the above example. (I guarantee that if you eliminated laziness you’d have howls of protest.) Having just one bullet list marker or thematic break style would not simplify the spec or parsers significantly. I have already put down my thoughts about how some tweaks to Markdown syntax would create a more rational language and simplify the spec and parsers: > [@Beyond Markdown](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/beyond-markdown/2787): > > Beyond Markdown In developing Commonmark, we have tried, as far as possible, to remain faithful to John Gruber’s original Markdown syntax description. We have diverged from it only occasionally, in the interest of removing ambiguity and increasing uniformity, and with the addition of a few syntax elements that are now virtuously ubiquitous (like fenced code blocks and shortcut reference links). There are very good reasons for being conservative in this way. But this respect for the past has mad… and with slight modifications at > **[John MacFarlane - Beyond Markdown](https://johnmacfarlane.net/beyond-markdown.html)** > > John MacFarlane --- _[View the full topic](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/strict-markdown-subset/3427)._