17

Just a note for people who might not have paid attention to the Meta Stack Exchange posts, but do pay attention to our meta: the migration to using CommonMark for Markdown syntax for our corner of Stack Exchange is scheduled for took place on June 11, 2020. We should keep a closer eye on formatting for the next few days.

References:

  1. We're switching to CommonMark (also the place to post bug reports)
  2. Migration Schedule (answer posted to the above)
| |
  • 3
    Appreciate the heads up @muru - ty – slm Jun 11 at 18:41
6

I'll just mention a significant consequence of that here as I was just hit by it:

Apparently, articles that were last edited before the transition are still rendered the old way, so you don't need to edit your posts to convert them to the new syntax, but, if you edit an old article, whether it's yours or someone else's, then it needs to be in the new syntax.

So if you edit an article just to change the text, you have to bear in mind that it might break the formatting and you need to convert it to the new syntax.

If somebody edits one of your articles, you may also want to double check that it doesn't break the formatting.

That struck me when editing an article of mine that had a list with two levels, written as:

- item1
 - subitem2
 - subitem2
- item2

That used to be rendered as:

  • item1
    • subitem2
    • subitem2
  • item2

But after an edit that was only changing some wording, it got rendered as:

  • item1
  • subitem2
  • subitem2
  • item2

Which completely changed the meaning and I had to change it to:

- item1
  - subitem2
  - subitem2
- item2
| |
  • 1
    Also: 1) This also affects nested code blocks and paragraphs that are part of a list item and follow a blank line. 2) Nested code blocks may show a subtler issue: the next edit may make some white space appear at the beginning of lines (this post of yours is an example). 3) An unfortunate thing to keep in mind in case of posts edited by someone else: all revisions' HTML is generated by the new renderer - the post's old look is likely lost. – fra-san Jun 28 at 22:37

You must log in to answer this question.

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