> How should we interpret something like > > <::(:id ?\s)> > or > <::(:id "foo\nbar")> > or > <::(:id "foo\"bar")> > or > <::(:id foo)> > ?
Those would be all invalid. Our method requires that the metadata is a properly escaped plist such that properties like :id, :regexp ... have string values. So <::(:id "foo\nbar")> should be <::(:id "foo\\nbar")> and <::(:id "foo\"bar")> should be <::(:id "foo\\"bar")> > and what about > > <::(:id "foo\"bar" invalid??)> That would be obviously invalid as well, not sure I get what you meant here. "Ihor Radchenko" <[email protected]> writes: > Julien Dallot <[email protected]> writes: > >> Hello back, >> >>> My concern has nothing to do with users. >>> It is about third-party parsers that will have to implement Elisp parser >>> on top of Org parser. >> >> I'm not sure I get your point, as third-party parsers already had to >> deal with emacs regexps in links. Or are you talking about parsing >> the plist's properties? > > I am talking about parsing plists themselves. > > How should we interpret something like > > <::(:id ?\s)> > or > <::(:id "foo\nbar")> > or > <::(:id "foo\"bar")> > or > <::(:id foo)> > ? > > and what about > > <::(:id "foo\"bar" invalid??)>
