Implicit Link Names

[Jason Clark]

On Apr 3, 2004, at 9:08 AM, John Gruber wrote:
> I realize that when you *want* to create a link, this:
>
>     [this] is a link
>
> looks very appealing. It's easy to type, and it's easy to read.
>
> The problem is that you can't tell by looking at it if it's supposed
> to be a link or not.
>
This seems to be the prevailing opinion as to why [this] is a poor way 
to perform implicit links - you can't tell by looking, as [bracket 
text] is just to commonplace.  I still like it, but I'm beginning to 
see why others do not.


> Everyone seems to agree that this:
>
>     [this][] is a link
>
> is slightly ugly/kludgy/crufty whatever.
>
> But it's also obvious at a glance that it's a link.
>
Looks kludgy, yes, but also looks like a link.  Based on the above idea 
that a link looking like a link is a good thing, [this][] has its 
merits.

(condensing)
>     [this]-> is a link
>     [this]= is a link
>     [this]__ is a link
>
The first looks like a link, but looks like more typing than [this][].  
The others just don't make me think link.

The only thing (IMO) that looks like a link, is easier to type than 
[this][], possibly less visually disruptive than [this][], and avoid 
the accidental triggering issues of [this], is:

	[[this]] is a link.

I know this has been rejected previously,  but to me [[this]] is easier 
to type and more visually distinctive than [this][].  Rad Geek also 
pointed out prior usage precident with Wikipedia.  In fact, as I look 
at this doc and think about the visible distinctiveness angle, I think 
I actually prefer [[this]] to [this].  Whoodathunk?


Jason Clark <jason at jclark.org>
http://jclark.org/weblog/