commonmark (and pandoc too I think) supports raw html tags in your Markdown, huh, TIL. This means we would have to disable them, if neuron is to support <foobar> style links. this wouldn't have been a problem had we chosen an unique syntax, like [[foobar]].
commonmark (and pandoc too I think) supports raw html tags in your Markdown, huh, TIL. This means we would have to disable them, if neuron is to support
<foobar>style links. this wouldn't have been a problem had we chosen an unique syntax, like[[foobar]].In light of this, wouldn't it be more sensible to change the syntax?
I agree, we should be able to use raw HTML, also
[[foobar]]is the same syntax as wiki style links which makes sense for a zettelkastenI wouldn't personally mind changing the syntax really, but since this would be a breaking change - I wanted to see how others feel about it.
When working on the commonmark parser, I felt that keeping support for legacy links is an unnecessary pain ...
Well if we have migration scripts it is not that big of a deal I guess
Not gonna bother with this. The raw html parser can be overriden to skip neuron links anywya.
To be clear: this would be user overridable. As long as whatever link syntax they use gets parsed as a
Linknode in the pandoc AST.