> Am 26.05.2015 um 11:03 schrieb Damien Cassou <damien.cas...@inria.fr>: > > > Ben Coman <b...@openinworld.com> writes: > >> This might be a case where is reasonable for both to be valid: >> @ for backward compatibility >> # for compatibility with internet conventions > > - Pillar is not an Internet-related tool. It produces HTML, but not only: > Pillar produces LaTeX and Markdown and we plan to make it support > Docbook. For example, LaTeX uses \ref to represent anchors, should > Pillar use \ref instead of @? > No, of course not. I see an URI as good and common known abstraction to reference resources. It is useful regardless how you access different resources and that is what are the semantics behind the anchor and the reference.
> - Creating anchors in the document is done through the @@ syntax. As a > result, both links and anchors use the same character. Switching to # > for links only would break this similarity. Switching to # for both > links and anchors would break even more document and website (but I > think that's ok). > > Breaking backward compatibility is ok, but we should pay attention when > we do it. > As it was proposed already there could be a time where both would work. So this is not an argument. I can see that the meaning of an anchor or a reference in pillar can exceed the semantics of an URI. In this case it wouldn't be a good idea to use URI syntax. But I doubt this will be the case. So I'm opting for a format that is commonly known and that enables URI aware software not be mislead by a format. Norbert
