| 15:50 | <Michael Ficarra> | is there a good reason why we don't have ? and ! appearances link to their definition? |
| 15:50 | <Michael Ficarra> | it's really not easy to Ctrl+F for |
| 15:58 | <bakkot> | could probably be done |
| 15:59 | <bakkot> | not sure if the existing autolinking would handle it, particularly avoiding false positives |
| 16:42 | <Michael Ficarra> | we could use an alternative markup in the spec document |
| 16:42 | <Michael Ficarra> | it doesn't have to look like ? and ! in the source |
| 16:44 | <bakkot> | No, absolutely not |
| 16:44 | <bakkot> | That is an unreasonable burden on authors |
| 16:53 | <Michael Ficarra> | do you think it would add much weight to the rendered document? |
| 16:53 | <Michael Ficarra> | that's a lot of links |
| 16:56 | <bakkot> | I assume it compresses though it does still affect parse and layout |
| 16:57 | <bakkot> | Striiiictly speaking we could do it client side |
| 16:57 | <bakkot> | Ecmarkup could be made to be client side entirely |
| 17:22 | <Michael Ficarra> | lol I (selfishly) care more about weight for initial rendering time, not download time, so that would work against my goals |