This might be a case where is reasonable for both to be valid: @ for backward compatibility # for compatibility with internet conventions cheers -ben
On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Cyril Ferlicot <cyril.ferli...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi. > We used '@' because Pier used it this way. I'm afraid that if we > change the character that will break Pier. > But if you write *Chapter 1>../Chapter1/chapter1.pillar@cha:chapter1* > and export in HTML you'll get > <a href="../Chapter1/chapter1.html#cha:chapter1"> I. Chapter 1 </a> > > On 23 May 2015 at 08:44, Norbert Hartl <norb...@hartl.name> wrote: > > Cyril, > > > > Am 22.05.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Cyril Ferlicot <cyril.ferli...@gmail.com > >: > > > > The second main change is the Internal Links. > > Now when you want to reefer to an anchor, a figure or a script you'll > > need to use *@anchor* instead of *anchor*. > > I'm sorry for that but that's the easiest way to implement the > > inter-files links. > > > > > > why @? It is about links and how to point to a fragment inside a > resource. > > This already exists and is called fragment identifier > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragment_identifier > > > > You do it by using # the separate the resource and the fragment in an > URI. > > > > '../chapters/chapter1.pillar#section1' > > > > is complete valid URI and the way to go. Can you change that? > > > > Norbert > > > > > > -- > Cheers > Cyril Ferlicot > >
