Implicit Link Names

[Lou Quillio]

On Apr 2, 2004, at 4:30 PM, Jason Clark wrote:

> To me it seems more intuitive to do this:
> 	I just searched [Google] for information about [dogs].

As stated, I'm okay with it -- provided the author retains 
responsibility for conflicts, within a clearly stated (probably 
bottom-up) parsing scheme.  And, of course, that adding linking syntax 
beyond JG's original conception doesn't make MD work too hard.  
Spitting warnings and embedding hooks for same is working too hard, 
imo, and permanently changes MD's user-relationship.

> which is also more legible than this:
> 	I just searched [Google][] for information about [dogs][].

A euro-dude around here seems to think that defeating this syntax is 
unnecessary, and I wholeheartedly agree.   Needn't be an either/or 
proposition.

>> 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.
>>
> I think I'm missing something here.  How do you want/expect this to 
> behave?

Don't want to see it at all, but it's been floated.  Assume the 
adjacent word would be the presumed anchor.  Much trouble, little 
benefit.

LQ