Are extended attributes supported for space-indented code blocks?
I found this while debugging an issue I introduced in 08c3e4f48b2cf137f1848e789d6b5d21075b4e65. Take the following example:
Extended attributes might be used for language hints:
print("Hello world")
{@ .python-code }
This could be code from some kind of templating language:
{
The Stuff is {@ .stuff @} here.
}
This renders as
<p>Extended attributes might be used for language hints:</p>
<pre><code class="python-code">print("Hello world")
</code></pre>
<p>This could be code from some kind of templating language:</p>
<pre><code class="stuff">{
The Stuff is
</code></pre>
All of this revolves around the fact that it is possible to use "{@ " to introduce an extended attribute inside a code block. I haven't seen any documentation for this, so I'm not sure whether this is a bug or a feature. The second case, which is killing of a large portion of the code block, looks very much like a bug. The first case might be a genuine feature, even though I'd prefer a fenced code block with attributes on the line of the opening fence.
Should the first case be officially supported and documented?
Should the second case be fixed? If so, where is the boundary to distinguish it from the first case?
Is there some other supported way of adding extended attributes to space-indented code blocks?
Are extended attributes supported for space-indented code blocks?
I found this while debugging an issue I introduced in 08c3e4f48b2cf137f1848e789d6b5d21075b4e65. Take the following example:
This renders as
All of this revolves around the fact that it is possible to use
"{@ "
to introduce an extended attribute inside a code block. I haven't seen any documentation for this, so I'm not sure whether this is a bug or a feature. The second case, which is killing of a large portion of the code block, looks very much like a bug. The first case might be a genuine feature, even though I'd prefer a fenced code block with attributes on the line of the opening fence.