The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20240525124833/https://github.com/oasis-tcs/sarif-spec/issues/153
Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Clarify treatment of backslashes and square brackets with respect to embedded links #153

Closed
ghost opened this issue Apr 25, 2018 · 2 comments
Labels

Comments

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Apr 25, 2018

Section 3.9.5, “Messages with embedded links”, describes a custom syntax for embedded links, and it says that square brackets that are not part of embedded links should be escaped. But it’s not clear whether a backslashed "]" should be considered part of the link text, interpreted as a literal "]".

This is not only insufficiently precise; it also doesn't match GitHub Flavored Markdown's treatment of brackets and backslashes in links. The behavior we want is for this input:

sampleinput

to produce this output:

expectedoutput

Unfortunately the spec can't just say "Match GFM's behavior for hyperlinks" because GFM's link syntax includes features we don't want, like hover text. So I'll have to write words to explain exactly what we want.

@ghost ghost added CSD.1 Will be fixed in CSD.1. design-improvement labels Apr 25, 2018
@ghost ghost self-assigned this Apr 25, 2018
@michaelcfanning
Copy link
Contributor

Suggest document a regular expression that handles identifyinkg links. Chris M. is developing one.

@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Apr 30, 2018

@michaelcfanning The rest of the spec uses ISO14977 Extended BNF syntax, so I'll use that here too. In fact, the spec already has EBNF for the link syntax, but the proposal I just sent out in mail is slightly different, so I'll need to tweak it a bit.

ghost pushed a commit that referenced this issue May 5, 2018
ghost pushed a commit that referenced this issue May 5, 2018
ghost pushed a commit that referenced this issue May 17, 2018
@ghost ghost closed this as completed May 17, 2018
This issue was closed.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant