Attributes Extension #105
Open
Attributes Extension #105
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
mb21
force-pushed
the
master
branch
3 times, most recently
from
59e3cd6
to
f8ab541
Compare
|
I think you should rebase and merge in just the "non-space" vs "nonspace" and other simple textual changes first, and make a different pull request for the rest of it. |
arve0
reviewed
Oct 14, 2016
| x = 1 | ||
| ``` | ||
| . | ||
| <pre><code class="language-ruby">x = 1 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should the expected output also contain the id code1?
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I realize this pull request may be a bit premature, but I wanted to put it out there for people to have a look and give feedback. (Otherwise just merge the typos.) Here's the proposal after running
make spec.html.This proposal was started on talk.commonmark.org and any substantial feedback on the attribute syntax should go there.
There is also a more general discussion about the standardization of extensions to 'core markdown'. For example, should this really be in the same document as the core spec, or should each extension get its own spec document?