it seems weird to have HTML as a non-optional part of the spec in two separate locations, and then "Because we might be targeting a non-HTML format"
it would make more sense to just have some way to dedicate a block of text to not be parsed in any form.
regardless, I'm 99% sure I'm intentionally missing the point here, as I can imagine reddit's, github's, stackoverflow's, et al.'s implementations would not support html tags at all (and anything for a personal site would have less restrictions on usable html tags). So in practice, it is going to be optional to some degree for implementers. but it seems weird to have that implied, when the handling of info-lines for codeblocks is explicitly left ambiguous
it would make more sense to just have some way to dedicate a block of text to not be parsed in any form.
regardless, I'm 99% sure I'm intentionally missing the point here, as I can imagine reddit's, github's, stackoverflow's, et al.'s implementations would not support html tags at all (and anything for a personal site would have less restrictions on usable html tags). So in practice, it is going to be optional to some degree for implementers. but it seems weird to have that implied, when the handling of info-lines for codeblocks is explicitly left ambiguous