GitHub Task to HTML = don't render correctly in MMD
First of all… I love MultiMarkdown… it's my personal "standard/common" Markdown ◕‿↼.
That said, I found something and I'm curious what you have to say about it, Fletcher.
MultiMarkdown renders task lists formatted with the GitHub syntax without a space between the "checkbox" and the inline Markdown link title, hence malformatting the link.
Markdown:
- [ ] [Title 1](#)
- [ ] [Title 2](#)
HTML Output:
<li>[ ][Title 1](#)</li>
<li>[ ][Title 2](#)</li>
I write all my stuff in MultiMarkdown, just recently I converted all my lists to GitHub task lists, but wasn't aware that MMD breaks them. (It's the only thing where I'm cheating a bit on MMD)
Is this not supported or just a bug? I know MultiMarkdown has a ton of bibliography features so I guess they are the culprit so to speak.
It would be nice to know if I should switch to another Markdown flavour for my lists or if this could/will get fixed.
This problem was also mention on the [Marked forum](http://support.markedapp.com/discussions/problems/32550-github-style-task-lists).
Complete example for reference:
Here's the example file: http://oho.xyz/test.md
Keyboard shortcuts
Generic
| ? | Show this help |
|---|---|
| ESC | Blurs the current field |
Comment Form
| r | Focus the comment reply box |
|---|---|
| ^ + ↩ | Submit the comment |
You can use Command ⌘ instead of Control ^ on Mac
Support Staff 1 Posted by Fletcher on 26 Oct, 2014 07:21 PM
MultiMarkdown has no concept of "Task lists" or checkboxes. It's something I mentioned as an idea years before github, but to date it's not part of MultiMarkdown.
It's not high on my list of priorities, but might be considered for a future release of MMD in the future.
2 Posted by _patrickwelker on 26 Oct, 2014 07:43 PM
Thanks for considering it. I know it only looks like a simple bit of syntax, but I can image there are boulders to move behind the scenes to get something like `- [ ] [title](link)` rendered properly with all the other features.
Support Staff 3 Posted by Fletcher on 27 Oct, 2014 11:03 PM
The main problem I foresee is that
[foo] [x]is a valid link, as is[foo][x]and[foo]and[ ] [foo]. So it might be tricky to disambiguate....But, like I said, this is behind a bunch of other things on my priority list. No promises on when it might happen.