And here's Garen's response: When it comes to the current implementation of the (GFM) spec, yes, that syntax is compatible. There's no usage of ^ anywhere. But , I had forgotten that `[^<phrase>]` can also refers to footnotes, so there might be a potential for collision there. I will say I am far less concerned with the ^ glyph as I am with coming up with a method that does not rely on raw markup. It could be a $ or #, for example. Another option is to be more explicit through some kind of keyword: conref:[power-off](Make sure power to the fixture where you are installing the light bulb is turned OFF.) [conref: low-power.html#low-power/disconnect-warning] It's a bit longer to type but at least there's no ambiguity at having to remember one more "magic character," and anyhow, the chance of collision with future spec changes drops to near-zero. ---- Garen also mentioned that he is interested in joining the SC. I sent him the URL of OASIS membership levels. Let's see if he can get sponsorship and join us. Carlos -- Carlos Evia, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Communication Chair, Hispanic/Latino Faculty & Staff Caucus Virginia Tech Blacksburg, VA 24061-0112 (540)200-8201 On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 8:34 PM Carlos Evia <
cevia@vt.edu > wrote: Very good point. I will email him tomorrow and ask. On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 6:14 PM Mark Giffin <
mark@markgiffin.com > wrote: Throwing out a couple ideas. If Garen's Markdown-only approach for conrefs does not break GFM, then I think we should look at it. Does our existing Markdown conref syntax break GFM? My guess is that it does not because it uses HTML5. My idea is to have the smallest possible number of items that are unique to MDITA, that break compatibility with GFM. Mark Giffin On 28-Jan-19 8:50 AM, Carlos Evia wrote: Dear LwDITA SC people, I have a to-do item of contacting Garen Torikian to ask if his proposed approach for doing conrefs in MDITA breaks (or not) GitHub Flavored Markdown... but then I remembered that MDITA extended profile BREAKS GFM already with the Markdown Extra syntax for footnotes and definition lists and the Pandoc syntax that we use in the YAML headers. Those things do not exist in the GFM/CommonMark spec. So... maybe the question is for us as a SC: Do we want to explore the adoption of a Markdown-only approach for conrefs for MDITA extended profile? Then, we would need to talk to Jarno and Robert and question if this is feasible, and then reach out to Garen and ask if GFM would support MDITA as a whole and not just this component, Thoughts? Carlos -- Carlos Evia, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Communication Chair, Hispanic/Latino Faculty & Staff Caucus Virginia Tech Blacksburg, VA 24061-0112 (540)200-8201 -- -- Carlos Evia, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Communication Chair, Hispanic/Latino Faculty & Staff Caucus Virginia Tech Blacksburg, VA 24061-0112 (540)200-8201 Attachment: smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature