2

When CommonMark was adopted, it added support for numbered list that use 1) as the markdown.

I was looking at this answer from 2009 on Stackoverflow and saw that it contained "1)". Before a few minutes ago, I actually didn't know CommonMark added this functionality. So I went to edit this post to make it 1., but before making any changes, the edit preview looks like so:

edit preview

The preview renders the markdown for the numbered list correctly, however the post itself still shows as "1)" and "2)". Additionally, the code highlighting is not working in the preview, but in the post it is. I suspect it is something to do with the indentation of the code and the 1) markdown. I haven't made an edit yet to address it since I'm unsure if this is a bug?

I saw this post and I don't think its the same, but I am not sure. Either way it seems off somehow.

1
  • 1
    This is essentially a duplicate, though the formatting is slightly different.
    – Laurel
    Jul 14 at 20:47

1 Answer 1

3

Laurel was right with her comment, pointing out as to why this happens. Which is answered perfectly clear here by staff member animuson. TLDR: The post hasn't been re-rendered since the change of the markdown parser, and is thus still cached in its old state.

There is something else going on however, as to why the code isn't properly formatted.

The official Markdown documentation states:

List items may consist of multiple paragraphs. Each subsequent paragraph in a list item must be indented by either 4 spaces or one tab:

Effectively by switching this into a propperly formatted list, the code has become a paragraph that is linked to the list item above. To have it be formatted as code there are two options:

  1. format using a code fence like so:

    test code here
    
  2. Indent with an extra set of spaces:

    test code here
    

You can click the edit button and see the difference.

2
  • 1
    So basically, the solution is to edit that post to re‐render a new cached copy.
    – Timothy G.
    Jul 14 at 22:20
  • Yes @TimothyG. Doing so wil cache a new HTML version of the post.
    – Luuklag
    Jul 15 at 6:14

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .