I also agree that single bracket reference-style syntax is not prudent. As Jacob
suggested, it creates ambiguity for the reader (Is it an edit or a link?). It
also creates a new problem of potential conflict, however rare that may be.
It seems reasonable to prefix a marker colon (possibly followed by whitespace):
[:ref link] or [: ref link]
And perhaps the same for attributes:
{:att ref} or {: att ref}
This syntax is also more coherent with the footnote syntax[^1] (which also
prefixes a marker). It simply seems prudent to me. Comments?
On 1/17/07, Richard Taytor <dick at gutz.com> wrote:> It seems reasonable to prefix a marker colon (possibly followed by whitespace): > > [:ref link] or [: ref link] > > And perhaps the same for attributes: > > {:att ref} or {: att ref}This is what I implemented in Maruku. After a week of using it, I would say that the additional ":" does not introduce much "visual noise",and is certainly worth keeping to make things less ambiguous. One thing: I would use a different symbol for the short link syntax. A colon makes me think of a description, which is coherent with the idea of attributes, but not with the idea of link (this is subjective, of course). What about this: And this is a [*short link] -- or is it better *[like this]? -- Andrea Censi "Life is too important to be taken seriously" (Oscar Wilde) Web: http://www.dis.uniroma1.it/~censi
Le 2007-01-16 ? 21:16, Richard Taytor a ?crit :> It seems reasonable to prefix a marker colon (possibly followed by > whitespace): > > [:ref link] or [: ref link]But then, what would be the point of writing [:ref link] instead of [ref link][]? If we introduce a shortcut syntax, I think the only option is [ref link]; anything else would just be an *alternative* syntax to [ref link][], not really a shortcut since you're adding new things. And I don't see the point in adding a new syntax for links with so little added value. Michel Fortin michel.fortin at michelf.com http://www.michelf.com/
I agree with you Michel. My only point is to possibly avoid the impending unmarked syntax by suggesting an alternative. (Beyond that, I'm just thinking of future extension for similar expansions: a prefixed marker inside delimiters seems to be good form, rather than using delimiters alone.)