Re: [O] [RFC] Small syntax change for footnote definitions

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Samuel Wales <address@hidden> writes:

> Does this allow blank lines to separate paragraphs in inline footnote
> definitions?

No. Inline definitions stay inlined and as such, cannot contain blank
lines. My proposal is only about full footnote definitions.

> If so, it sounds very good.
>
> I presume we can still do
>
> ===
>   1) a
>
> b.
>
>   1) c
> ===

Yes, the limitation is only about two consecutive lists. In this case,
they are not consecutive.


Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou