Implicit Link Names

[Lou Quillio]

What spooked was the idea of *interpreted* link anchors:

      Now is the time for [all good men] to come to the aid of their
      pseudomarkup.

      [good]: http://textism.com/tools/textile/

Remove interpretation and some problems fall away:

      [all good men]: http://textism.com/tools/textile/

But some remain.  Use of non-anchor square brackets still requires some 
vigilance, though lots less than in an interpreted situation.  
Multi-author environments would have to make certain that MD text blobs 
were processed discretely (though they probably would be, anyhow).  
Bottom-up parsing would have to be a conscious stipulation, and 
duplicate anchor text would have to be resolved against a single target 
(no *errors*, just consequences).

I still think unintended (and unforeseen) conflicts might arise, but 
maybe are marginal.  As long as anchors are literal and uninterpreted, 
and parsing outcomes remain the user's responsibility -- and don't give 
rise to parser *warnings* or anything like the notion of "validity," 
I'll back off.

All of this really needs to be weighed against the benefits, though.  I 
want to be able to quote or re-factor myself in native MD a year hence 
without having to pore over the new text, rooting-out link conflicts.  
Explicit referential links are such a boon it seems gluttonous to want 
even more convenience.

Let's also be careful not to consider things solely in an essay-length 
box.  MD needs to work in longer pieces; its traction will suffer if 
it's developed within tacit, artificial constraints.

Oh and this, natch, is a minefield in any case:

      Now is the time for all good men[link] to come to the aid of their
      pseudomarkup.

LQ

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Lou Quillio
P.O. Box 24
Saratoga Springs, NY, USA 12866
518.796.0256 (cell)
http://quillio.com/