From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id GPMrLaEbM2AhOQAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 02:49:05 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1 with LMTPS id gEQDKaEbM2BiEAAAbx9fmQ (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 02:49:05 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFF1C12C75 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 03:49:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1]:37776 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lE1HT-00052t-AH for larch@yhetil.org; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 21:49:03 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:46394) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lE1Gy-00052Z-EJ for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 21:48:32 -0500 Received: from hiwela.pair.com ([209.68.5.201]:12148) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lE1Gw-0003mx-IB for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 21:48:32 -0500 Received: from hiwela.pair.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hiwela.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F08C9980587; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 21:48:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from minshall-entroware-apollo.cliq.com (unknown [95.8.212.136]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by hiwela.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A564B8F0957; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 21:48:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from apollo2.minshall.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minshall-entroware-apollo.cliq.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C5A6630C3; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 05:48:25 +0300 (+03) From: Greg Minshall To: Tim Cross Subject: Re: 'false' list item In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 21 Feb 2021 18:05:24 +1100." <8735xpgap0.fsf@gmail.com> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7.1; GNU Emacs 27.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <678484.1613962105.1@apollo2.minshall.org> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 05:48:25 +0300 Message-ID: <678485.1613962105@apollo2.minshall.org> Received-SPF: softfail client-ip=209.68.5.201; envelope-from=minshall@umich.edu; helo=hiwela.pair.com X-Spam_score_int: -11 X-Spam_score: -1.2 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.2 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-orgmode" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -2.27 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed), No valid DKIM" header.from=umich.edu (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of emacs-orgmode-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=emacs-orgmode-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: CFF1C12C75 X-Spam-Score: -2.27 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: 7FzInEc0eLkQ Tim, > If a line starts with a number, period and space, but that line is > within a paragraph (i.e. no blank line above), then I don't think it > should be interpreted as an enumerated list item. If this is what the OP > is referring to, I would argue it is a bug. If it is a 'paragraph' > starting with a number, period and space, then being interpreted as a > list item would be 'normal'. i know this isn't precisely the discussion, but i use *unnumbered* lists, and i most often have no blank line separating the list from the paragraph above (or, indeed, below). i could get used to a modified requirement, to reduce the false positives, but, would want heads up (or, maybe, sigh, an option?). cheers, Greg