{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/commonmark/CommonMark/issues/466","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/commonmark/CommonMark","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/commonmark/CommonMark/issues/466/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/commonmark/CommonMark/issues/466/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/commonmark/CommonMark/issues/466/events","html_url":"https://github.com/commonmark/CommonMark/pull/466","id":224933829,"node_id":"MDExOlB1bGxSZXF1ZXN0MTE4MDQ3OTA0","number":466,"title":"Block quote marker choice uniformity","user":{"login":"aidantwoods","id":3288888,"node_id":"MDQ6VXNlcjMyODg4ODg=","avatar_url":"https://avatars1.githubusercontent.com/u/3288888?v=4","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/aidantwoods","html_url":"https://github.com/aidantwoods","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/aidantwoods/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/aidantwoods/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/aidantwoods/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/aidantwoods/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/aidantwoods/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/aidantwoods/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/aidantwoods/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/aidantwoods/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/aidantwoods/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":null,"comments":13,"created_at":"2017-04-27T22:46:03Z","updated_at":"2018-09-11T21:21:24Z","closed_at":null,"author_association":"CONTRIBUTOR","pull_request":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/commonmark/CommonMark/pulls/466","html_url":"https://github.com/commonmark/CommonMark/pull/466","diff_url":"https://github.com/commonmark/CommonMark/pull/466.diff","patch_url":"https://github.com/commonmark/CommonMark/pull/466.patch"},"body":"Require that the same block quote marker be used to avoid ambiguity in parsing strategy (compatible with the algorithm described [here](https://github.com/jgm/CommonMark/issues/460#issuecomment-293715367))\r\n\r\nFor what it's worth, this is one of the possible interpretations of the rule being overwritten – so it's not strictly new, just more specific ;)"},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/commonmark/CommonMark/issues/comments/420429777","html_url":"https://github.com/commonmark/CommonMark/pull/466#issuecomment-420429777","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/commonmark/CommonMark/issues/466","id":420429777,"node_id":"MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDQyMDQyOTc3Nw==","user":{"login":"aidantwoods","id":3288888,"node_id":"MDQ6VXNlcjMyODg4ODg=","avatar_url":"https://avatars1.githubusercontent.com/u/3288888?v=4","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/aidantwoods","html_url":"https://github.com/aidantwoods","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/aidantwoods/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/aidantwoods/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/aidantwoods/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/aidantwoods/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/aidantwoods/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/aidantwoods/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/aidantwoods/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/aidantwoods/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/aidantwoods/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2018-09-11T21:21:24Z","updated_at":"2018-09-11T21:21:24Z","author_association":"CONTRIBUTOR","body":"I like this idea, especially so since it addresses uniformity while not breaking the `>>> foo` case and consistent uses of the shorter marker. It's also a nice bonus not requiring major parsing strategy changes to meet the spec ;-)\r\nI think we might have to change the wording of the spec to accommodate this parsing in a way that no longer completely uses the writer's perspective: we'd be explaining how we interpret the marker on the first line instead of a description about prepending the same marker to the beginning of some existing lines.\r\n\r\ni.e. (with `•` representing a space in the following)\r\n```\r\n>•foo\r\n>bar\r\n```\r\n\r\nhas a singular interpretation with this new rule, but the writer may have started with\r\n\r\n```\r\n•foo\r\nbar\r\n```\r\nand prepended `>` to both lines (the same marker on each line).\r\nAlternatively they may have started with\r\n```\r\nfoo\r\n>bar\r\n```\r\nand prepended `>•` to the first line and left the second as continuation text.\r\n\r\nThis new rule assumes the latter case, and the only way to explain why is to say how the marker on the first line is interpreted (reader's perspective). This could be as simple as saying something like: \"if there is ambiguity as to whether `>` or `>•` was prepended to the first line then `>•` will be assumed\". This would be in addition to the requirement already added in this PR that enforces that the same block quote marker must be prepended to all lines (so that we may deduce the choice of marker on the remaining lines)."}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"aidantwoods"}}