Tightening the rules for literal `[` and `]` chars in link ids

[Michel Fortin]

John Gruber wrote:


> After a few more minutes of thought, I'm having a hard time coming

> up with a good reason why `[` and `]` shouldn't just be banned

> characters for link ref IDs.



Jacob Rus wrote:


> What's wrong with just forcing users to write:

>

>     In [his [distorted] view][hisview], this isn't something to worry

>     about.

>

>     [hisview]: http://something.com

>

> I really don't get the advantage of having absurd reference names.



Is there any advantage in not supporting them? Personally I see no  
reason why square brackets should be disallowed when properly escaped  
or nested. From the track record it doesn't seem likely that this  
will cause any problem.

There is an idiom: if it ain't broke, don't fix it (or it may just  
create new problems). I think it applies here: there is no problem  
reported on this after a couple of years of people all around the web  
using Markdown.

I'm all okay with fixing the completely illogical and bogus behaviour  
of creating reference definition `like][that` when the brackets are  
not escaped because I can't see anyone expect this to produce the  
result it does. But I think escaped or correctly nested brackets  
should still work simply because there is some logic in them and  
because Markdown allowed that for a long time. Right now I have seen  
a couple of suggestions but little justification for completely  
removing brackets.


Michel Fortin
michel.fortin at michelf.com
http://www.michelf.com/