Weird glitch with Footnote Extension about commonmark

[colinodell]

Babelmark3 confirms that we handle this differently than GitHub's GFM implementation:

Unfortunately the GFM spec doesn't anything about footnote functionality, so we'll need to decide whether/how to follow their implementation anyway, assuming it follows the other principles of the spec. More research is needed here.

[colinodell]

After further investigation, it seems this library is working as expected. According to our spec:

Footnotes should be separated from other blocks with blank lines

We do this because the syntax for footnotes is virtually identical to link reference definitions which cannot interrupt a paragraph. In other words, if it cannot be parsed as a valid link reference then it cannot be a footnote.

I also tested your input against cmark-gfm - the "official" implementation of GFM - which gave the same results as this library.

[colinodell]

Note that GitHub.com does do some additional pre- and post-processing outside of cmark-gfm to support certain features on their site. This special processing is not documented in the official GFM specification. That's why we have our own spec for footnotes which tries to stay close to GitHub.com's behavior without violating the actual, official specifications.