CommonMark has inline code blocks ` and fenced code blocks ``` fenced code blocks optionally with an info string. What if block quotes worked the same way?
Right now a multi-paragraph quote means sticking > at the front of every line. Fine when you're typing it, kind of annoying when you paste a few paragraphs in (from a PDF, an email, a chat window) and have to go back and add > to each one. A fence would let you wrap the whole thing once:
>>>
Some quoted text, pasted straight in.
Can run for a few paragraphs, and even hold a code block:
~~~
print("still inside the quote")
~~~
>>>
The part I'm particularly interested in here is the info string. With code fences you write ```python and most implementers turn that first word into a class, and the spec is clear it doesn't mandate what it means. A block-quote fence could carry the same sort of token: a source, an author, a URL for the cite attribute, whatever. I think this is especially relevant now, where there's a huge desire in the industry (and outside the industry!) to mark when text came from a language model. So something like
gives you a first-class way to say "this block is model output" instead of pasting it as plain text, or as a normal quote that reads like an actual person said it. Implementers could style or label it however they want, and the spec wouldn't have to pick a vocabulary, same as it doesn't define what python means.
Some prior art: there's a 2017 thread proposing exactly >>>. And GitLab Flavored Markdown has had multiline >>> blockquotes for years, and it's on the proposed-extensions wiki. One takeaway from that thread: >>> is indistinguishable from a blockquote nested three levels deep unless you add some rule that looks at the surrounding lines, which is why someone there ended up switching to <<<. I don't really care which delimiter wins. >>> reads best to me but whatever avoids the ambiguity is fine.
Is there any appetite for this in the spec? I'd be willing to open a pull request if so.
CommonMark has inline code blocks
`and fenced code blocks```fenced code blocks optionally with an info string. What if block quotes worked the same way?Right now a multi-paragraph quote means sticking
>at the front of every line. Fine when you're typing it, kind of annoying when you paste a few paragraphs in (from a PDF, an email, a chat window) and have to go back and add>to each one. A fence would let you wrap the whole thing once:The part I'm particularly interested in here is the info string. With code fences you write
```pythonand most implementers turn that first word into a class, and the spec is clear it doesn't mandate what it means. A block-quote fence could carry the same sort of token: a source, an author, a URL for theciteattribute, whatever. I think this is especially relevant now, where there's a huge desire in the industry (and outside the industry!) to mark when text came from a language model. So something likegives you a first-class way to say "this block is model output" instead of pasting it as plain text, or as a normal quote that reads like an actual person said it. Implementers could style or label it however they want, and the spec wouldn't have to pick a vocabulary, same as it doesn't define what
pythonmeans.Some prior art: there's a 2017 thread proposing exactly
>>>. And GitLab Flavored Markdown has had multiline>>>blockquotes for years, and it's on the proposed-extensions wiki. One takeaway from that thread:>>>is indistinguishable from a blockquote nested three levels deep unless you add some rule that looks at the surrounding lines, which is why someone there ended up switching to<<<. I don't really care which delimiter wins.>>>reads best to me but whatever avoids the ambiguity is fine.Is there any appetite for this in the spec? I'd be willing to open a pull request if so.