[this] as a synonym for [this][]

[Jelks Cabaniss]

Michel Fortin wrote:
> That's a recommendation for the writer, what's the recommendation to
> the reader? I mean: even if the author follows this recommandation,
> when the reader see a paragraph with brackets, how can he know if
> these are links or actual brackets?

In the NoteTab text editors, [whatever] is a link -- if the file "whatever"
exists.  But you can't be certain about it until you CTRL+double-click it
and "whatever" either does or does not open in a new tab the editor. :)

As a more serious aside, I've noted on more than several occasions people on
tech lists making a reference to [1] but forgetting the actual reference ...
and you only discover that after paging down X number of times.  I know that
doesn't exactly address your objection to the possible ambiguity, but it
does illustrate the problems associated with *any* kind of reference
linking.

I think these issues can be somewhat alleviated for both reader and writer,
whether links are done like [this] or like [this][] by the writer placing
the reference nearby, instead of X paragraphs/screens away at the very
bottom...

[this]: somelink

The first version is also easier on my eyes, but maybe that's just me.  

And while I'm not entirely convinced about your 60% vs. 99% certainty
levels, yes, if the writer ignores the above "proximity" advice, there will
likely be a bit more ambiquity for the reader with [this] vs. [this][].  Do
you think that is a show-stopper for not implementing [this]?

/Jelks