Something in this project's MkDocs setup is choking on an inline code `<![`. Probably a plugin, as I can't reproduce it in any of my external projects that use Mkdocs. This is not a concern for me right now. All the changes this PR makes are currently backwards compatible and pass in Python 3.14b03 as well (tested locally). Two failing tests in Python 3.14 remain. One in test_html_blocks and one in test_md_in_html. Both of these tests fail when parsing <! not a comment ... more content until end of the file.. Python 3.14 now consumes text as a comment until it is closed or reaches the end of the file.

1. We accept this change and alter tests.
2. We can try and track down how to override this behavior.

@waylan This is ready for input. I realize these are hacky fixes, but this identifies what the issues are and "possible" ways to fix them. I am open to better approaches if anyone has better approaches, but if we want to have backwards compatibility, this is at least an approach that could be done.

I'm thinking perhaps we should add a Python 3.14 set of tests to CI. I realize the backport will eventually make its way to all of the Python versions we support, but it would be good to have active tests passing before we merge. We don't need to officially list 3.14 as supported in the project metadata yet (unless it refuses to install), but just the tests.

'm thinking perhaps we should add a Python 3.14 set of tests to CI. I realize the backport will eventually make its way to all of the Python versions we support, but it would be good to have active tests passing before we merge. We don't need to officially list 3.14 as supported in the project metadata yet (unless it refuses to install), but just the tests.

Yep, I was planning to do this, just hadn't done it yet. I'll add it to this review.

It looks like CI is pulling Python 3.14b3 and it is passing, so this verifies the claim that 3.14 has parity with older versions.

This is still in draft status. Were you waiting for anything else before changing the status so it can be merged?

Nope, just wanted input first on whether this was our desired direction. I've moved it to normal review status now.