# Unclear spec regarding nested ordered lists with start numbers

**URL:** <https://talk.commonmark.org/t/unclear-spec-regarding-nested-ordered-lists-with-start-numbers/2199>\
**Category:** Spec\
**Created:** [August 15, 2016, 1:59am UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/unclear-spec-regarding-nested-ordered-lists-with-start-numbers/2199 "2016-08-15T01:59:40Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**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:** [September 2, 2016, 9:12am UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/unclear-spec-regarding-nested-ordered-lists-with-start-numbers/2199/3 "2016-09-02T09:12:29Z")

</div>

This divergence is due to a relatively recent change to CommonMark (which I’m still not fully persuaded is the right approach).

The change says that an ordered list can only interrupt a paragraph (i.e. with no preceding blank line) when it starts with `1.`. For motivation and background (as well as some dissent), see [Blank lines before lists, revisited](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/blank-lines-before-lists-revisited/1990/7)

---

_[View the full topic](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/unclear-spec-regarding-nested-ordered-lists-with-start-numbers/2199)._