[Link] shortcut

[John Gruber]

Michel Fortin <michel.fortin at michelf.com> wrote on 3/21/05 at 2:41 PM:


> Le 21 mars 2005, à 12:17, John Gruber a écrit :

> 

> > Here's a problem that's occurred to me, however. If you have adjacent 

> > links like this:

> >

> >     Check out [this] [that] and [the other].

> >

> >     [this]: /this/

> >

> >     [that]: /that/

> >

> >     [the other]: /theother/

> >

> > You're going to get unexpected output:

> >

> >     <p>Check out <a href="/that/">this</a> and <a href="/theother/">the

> >     other</a>.</p>

> 

> Hum, couldn't we do better? When finding `[this] [that]`, Markdown 

> checks if there is a label named "this". If such a label exists, 

> Markdown makes two links using the new syntax. So:

> 

>   Check out [this] [that] and [the other].

> 

>     [this]: this

>     [that]: that

>     [the other]: the_other

> 

> gives three links while:

> 

>   Check out [this] [that] and [the other].

> 

>     [that]: that

>     [the other]: the_other

> 

> give two links.


Looking at this now, I think the current implementation is correct.
Even when you have a link defined for `[this]` and `[that]`, I think

    [this] [that]

should be parsed as:

    link text: this
    link reference: that

rather than treating it the same as:

    [this][] [that][]

My thinking is that the "standard" syntax should have higher
precedence.

-J.G.