Martin Mitáš

> Is the example right here? > > ~~~ > [maybe link and maybe not](/url 'title with backtick`') > ~~~ > > I can't see why this would be anything...

As noted in some previous post, mixing link with raw HTML may also be unclear: ~~~ [maybe link and maybe not](/url '') [maybe link and maybe not](/url ' ') ~~~

@aidantwoods I disagree with your conclusions. The specs talks **only** about priority of the link text: > * Backtick code spans, autolinks, and raw HTML tags bind more tightly than...

@aidantwoods Maybe I was misunderstanding you. I thought you see the described interpretation as implied by current specification; not as a suggestion how it should be updated.

@mgeier > ~~~ > [a](b`c)d`e > ~~~ > > In this example, the first pass would create a "code span" with the content c)d, which would have to be un-parsed...

@mgeier ~~I now spent about an hour thinking about your suggestion from implementation point of view. That solution has one property which I dislike a lot.~~ ~~Right now it is...

> > and this behavior also has its merit. > > From an implementor's POV, probably (but not necessarily). > But also from a user's POV? > > The problem...

> Does that make sense? Well, maybe. But I still dislike it a lot ;-) I see these rules together as a quite unnatural and strange combination, especially if I...

BTW, AFAIK, right now there are only three things in CommonMark specs against the Principle of locality: 1. Links/images using link definition reference. 2. Turning list from tight into a...

> Here's one tricky issue that came up. Ideally, one would leave entities alone in link titles, rather than converting them to characters, at least if that's what one is...