An idea for within document anchor references

[John Gruber]

Fletcher T. Penney <fletcher at alumni.duke.edu> wrote on 8/21/05 at 11:50 PM:


> My implementation allows the following:

> 

> <EXAMPLE>

> 

> ### Some Header Text ###

> 

> You can point back to [another section][Some Header Text].  Or you  

> can implicitly link back to [Some Header Text][].


You are correct that my earlier proposal didn't include a way to
link to an in-article header without using the actual text of the
header itself as the text for the link. I'll have to think about
that.



> Just like regular implicit links as used in [markdown][].  Or the  

> reference-style links [like used in markdown][markdown].


But they're not "just like" regular links, because they're not tied
to link definitions. Their syntax ought to be distinct, somehow. In
other words, when you're reading a Markdown document, and there's a
link to an in-document header, you ought to be able to know for sure
that it's a link to a header, and not a link to a link definition.

Hence the `[#]` thing for implicit links to headers.

Maybe for other headers, it would be like:

    ## Foo
    
    Blah blah blah.

    [This is a link to the header.][#foo]



* * *


> This has all been implemented on my wiki, and the header links are  

> used in the outline at the top of my local copy of the Markdown Syntax:

> 

> http://fletcher.freeshell.org/wiki/MarkdownSyntax


I suppose you are aware that the content on that page was written by
me, copyrighted by me, and but on your page gives me neither credit
nor contains my copyright statement. I find this particularly
curious considering that you seem to have placed it under a Creative
Commons license which requires attribution.

-J.G.