On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 10:49, Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Neil Jerram <neiljer...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > I'm not sure how much freedom you have here, but I think it would be
> > both clearer - by avoiding confusion with URL-escaping - and easier to
> > type, to use an entirely different form of escaping in the Org syntax;
> > probably just this:
> >
> > \[ and \] to include a square bracket in a link
> > \\ to include a backslash
>
> Wouldn't that become problematic with file names in Windows?
Do you mean Windows file names in existing Org files? I.e. the
back-compatibility concern?
If so, yes, I confess I didn't think at all about back-compatibility,
with my suggestion above. So perhaps that rules my idea out.
If we were starting from scratch, however,
- I believe it would technically be fine; i.e. it's a complete and
unambiguous encoding
- it might be considered awkward for Windows users to have to write
c:\\system32\\mydoc.txt instead of c:\system32\mydoc.txt, but I don't
know how big a concern that would be.
Best wishes,
Neil
> Regards,
>
> --
> Nicolas Goaziou
