Link syntax (was: definition lists?)

Jason Blevins jrblevin at
Fri Nov 21 11:36:30 EST 2008

Thomas Nichols wrote:

> Tangentially, I notice that this post by Waylan uses a link syntax which

> doesn't seem to be defined by

> <> but seems to

> work in some implementations at <> - that is,


> from the git repo [1]

> instead of

> from the git repo [1][]

> or

> from the [git repo] [1].


> The link definition is then


> [1]:

This was introduced in 1.0.2b2.

> Which of the outputs generated at

> <[1]%0D%0Aat+commit+e968bbf+(on+Nov+6)%2C%0D%0A%0D%0A[1]>

> (also available at <> in case the full URI gets

> mashed) is considered 'expected'?

On Babelmark 1.0.2b8 honors this implicit reference syntax but
1.0.1 doesn't. I was aware of this syntax so my expected output is that
of the beta version. I haven't used it myself though because I've often
wondered how 'standard' it is. It looks like the majority of implementations
do support it though.

> IIUC, what I'll refer to "Waylan's syntax" makes any text enclosed in

> square brackets into a candidate for a link; the parser then searches

> for a matching link definition. I'm undecided whether the simplicity of

> this syntax offsets the risk of breaking existing documents. A link will

> only be generated if a matching link definition is found, IIUC, so

> perhaps this risk is acceptably low?


> Please point me to a previous discussion if available, I couldn't find

> one in the archives.

I couldn't find any discussion of it on the list, but here's the
changelog entry:

1.0.2b2 - 20 Mar 2005

+ Experimental support for [this] as a synonym for [this][].
(Note to self: No test yet for this.)
Be sure to test, e.g.: [permutations of this sort of [thing][].]


Jason Blevins
Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Economics, Duke University

More information about the Markdown-Discuss mailing list