@@ -79,8 +79,8 @@ This syntax has the following semantics:
7979{{% alert title="Warning" color="warning" %}}
8080Avoid using declarations for extension range groups such as ` extensions 4, 999 ` .
8181It is unclear which extension range the declarations apply to, and it is
82- currently
83- unsupported. {{% /alert %}}
82+ currently unsupported.
83+ {{% /alert %}}
8484
8585The extension declarations expect two extension fields with different packages:
8686
@@ -167,8 +167,8 @@ protoc will enforce that there are no field number conflicts. When you add a new
167167extension, choose the next available number usually by just incrementing by one
168168the previously added extension number.
169169
170- ** TIP:** There is a [ special guidance] ( #message-set ) for
171- ` MessageSet ` which provides a script to help pick
170+ ** TIP:** There is a [ special guidance] ( #message-set )
171+ for ` MessageSet ` which provides a script to help pick
172172the next available number.
173173
174174Whenever you delete an extension, make sure to mark the field number ` reserved `
@@ -202,8 +202,8 @@ and doesn’t provide a good way to detect fields encoded using one definition a
202202decoded using another.
203203
204204This ambiguity can manifest in a short time frame, such as a client using one
205- extension definition and a server using another communicating
206- .
205+ extension definition and a server using another
206+ communicating .
207207
208208This ambiguity can also manifest over a longer time frame, such as storing data
209209encoded using one extension definition and later retrieving and decoding using
@@ -235,10 +235,10 @@ the extension declaration can be [marked reserved](#reserved).
235235
236236Reserved numbers may have been used for fields or other extensions in the past.
237237
238- Using the ` full_name ` of a reserved field
239- is not recommended
240- due
241- to the possibility of ambiguity when using textproto.
238+ Using the ` full_name ` of a reserved
239+ field is not
240+ recommended due to the possibility of ambiguity when using
241+ textproto.
242242
243243### Never change the type of an existing extension declaration {#never-change-type}
244244
0 commit comments