Unclear: paragraph after empty quoteline in quote block

>
p

can be interpreted as “quote block then paragraph” (qbtp) or “quote block with an empty line then lazy paragraph line”. (qbqaeltlpl).

Implementations pick one interpretation, roughly distributed 50/50. I suggest to have the spec pick one interpretation.

The spec does specify the latter interpretation, that is why all implementations tagged as Commonmark-compliant at Babelmark do use it already.

1 Like

The spec does specify the latter interpretation

where?

No, the specification requires the former interpretation, i.e. as “quote block then paragraph” (qbtp)

cmark as C reference implementation sees it as this:

<blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p>x</p>

I.e. it does not see it as a continuation line.

The behavior is in an accordance with the specification:

Paragraph continuation text is text that will be parsed as part of the content of a paragraph, but does not occur at the beginning of the paragraph.

(See https://spec.commonmark.org/0.29/#block-quote, the last sentence of the paragraph about Laziness)

So, the specification explicitly says the continuation line cannot be the 1st line of the paragraph being continued from the block quote.

Also see https://spec.commonmark.org/0.29/#example-219, which confirms it.

The spec is clear, but not very clear on this. Example 219 indeed brings all clarity and I have overseen this example. Thanks for clarification from the spec and providing the missed example.

Yeah, I meant the former, the point being that all CM implementations agree.

Summary