7 ms·
Although I would argue it looks better, you don't have to use sequential numbers when defining ordered lists. Taken from the Markdown Syntax Documentation (htt
by chrishannah 7y ago
Although I would argue it looks better, you don't have to use sequential numbers when defining ordered lists.
Taken from the Markdown Syntax Documentation (https://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax https://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax):
It’s important to note that the actual numbers you use to mark the list have no effect on the HTML output Markdown produces. The HTML Markdown produces from the above list is:
<ol>
<li>Bird</li>
<li>McHale</li>
<li>Parish</li>
</ol>
If you instead wrote the list in Markdown like this:
1. Bird
1. McHale
1. Parish
...
you’d get the exact same HTML output. The point is, if you want to, you can use ordinal numbers in your ordered Markdown lists, so that the numbers in your source match the numbers in your published HTML. But if you want to be lazy, you don’t have to.
- enriquto 7y agoNotice that in HTML5 you do not need to close the li tags
- intertextuality 7y agoAlthough not exactly aesthetically pleasing, I actually prefer the 1. 1. 1. layout. Why? Because when you write something it's common to revise and re-order things. A lot. Having 1. 2. 3. means I'd have to go and fix the rest of the list. I see 1. 1. 1. like appending commas to every field in a struct declaration or an object constructor. It allows me to go back and arbitrarily move things around.