Re: Clarification on blank lines following list items

[Tom Alexander]

Thank you so much for explaining all of that! There is some good information 
there I was missing. I think the most important bit I was missing is the 
post-blank stuff. I was only looking at begin->end but I think digging into the 
post-blank is what makes this consistent.

I've got 2 separate questions:

1. Is the following statement true? "Two elements can count the same character 
in their post-blank?"
I am seeing dual-ownership of the post-blank in the examples below, but at the 
same time if I put a plain-list inside a footnote definition, the footnote 
definition ends up with sole custody of the post-blank.

2. I'm still not sure about some behavior I'm seeing. I think it would be 
easiest to see if we focus on exactly 1 blank line:

```
1. bar
2. baz
       <---- this blank line here
ipsum
```

In this example, the blank line gets counted in the post-blank for the 
plain-list but not for the item:
```
plain-list: post-blank 1 | begin 1 end 16 | contents-begin 1 contents-end 15
    item: post-blank 0 | begin 1 end 8 | contents-begin 4 contents-end 8
        paragraph: post-blank 0 | begin 4 end 8 | contents-begin 4 contents-end 
8
    item: post-blank 0 | begin 8 end 15 | contents-begin 11 contents-end 15
        paragraph: post-blank 0 | begin 11 end 15 | contents-begin 11 
contents-end 15
paragraph: post-blank 0 | begin 16 end 22 | contents-begin 16 contents-end 22
```

but if we take that plain-list and nest it inside another plain-list:
```
1. foo
   1. bar
   2. baz
           <---- this blank line here
2. lorem
ipsum
```

The blank line gets counted as a post-blank for both the item "foo" and the 
item "baz":
```
plain-list: post-blank 0 | begin 1 end 38 | contents-begin 1 contents-end 38
    item: post-blank 1 | begin 1 end 29 | contents-begin 4 contents-end 28
        paragraph: post-blank 0 | begin 4 end 8 | contents-begin 4 contents-end 
8
        plain-list: post-blank 0 | begin 8 end 29 | contents-begin 8 
contents-end 29
            item: post-blank 0 | begin 8 end 18 | contents-begin 14 
contents-end 18
                paragraph: post-blank 0 | begin 14 end 18 | contents-begin 14 
contents-end 18
            item: post-blank 1 | begin 18 end 29 | contents-begin 24 
contents-end 28
                paragraph: post-blank 0 | begin 24 end 28 | contents-begin 24 
contents-end 28
    item: post-blank 0 | begin 29 end 38 | contents-begin 32 contents-end 38
        paragraph: post-blank 0 | begin 32 end 38 | contents-begin 32 
contents-end 38
paragraph: post-blank 0 | begin 38 end 44 | contents-begin 38 contents-end 44
```

Meaning the post-blank did this movement:
```
plain-list: post-blank 0
    item: post-blank 1   <---<----<----<-\
        paragraph: post-blank 0          |
        plain-list: post-blank 0 >---->--|
            item: post-blank 0           |
                paragraph: post-blank 0  |
            item: post-blank 1   <---<---/
                paragraph: post-blank 0
    item: post-blank 0
        paragraph: post-blank 0
paragraph: post-blank 0
```


Question ---> So why is the item "baz" gaining a post-blank instead of the 
inner plain-list (bar baz) keeping that post-blank?

I would expect it to instead be:
```
plain-list: post-blank 0
    item: post-blank 1
        paragraph: post-blank 0
here -> plain-list: post-blank 1
            item: post-blank 0
                paragraph: post-blank 0
not here -> item: post-blank 0
                paragraph: post-blank 0
    item: post-blank 0
        paragraph: post-blank 0
paragraph: post-blank 0
```

I re-did both test cases using greater blocks and lesser blocks instead of 
paragraphs to make sure it wasn't that historical exception at the end of your 
email, and the post-blank behavior was exactly the same.


-- 
Tom Alexander