7

Over at Stack Overflow, I wrote a comment that renders like this:

enter image description here

and links to https://wg21.link/p2128>, which returns 404.

The way I wrote the link in the markup is <https://wg21.link/p2128>; this is supported by CommonMark and in fact recommended by RFC 3986. It seems to work fine everywhere else on the network, and I would expect the subset of Markdown available in comments to support this.

The bug does not appear consistently; another of my comments, also using less-than/greater-than signs to delimit a link, renders okay.

Can this be fixed?

Improve this question
3
  • 4
    Note that comments doesn't use CommonMark, it's using SE's own "watered-down comments Markdown system".
    – Meta Andrew T.
    Commented Oct 23, 2022 at 9:17
  • 3
    The workaround is to not use a naked link. For example, with the link text "unnecessary as of C++23".
    – This_is_NOT_a_forum
    Commented Oct 23, 2022 at 11:45
  • @This_is_NOT_a_forum That would defeat the point. I often use comments for quick-and-dirty notes where I don’t want to spend too much effort on formatting by placing two different kinds of brackets, and on thinking which actual sub-phrase should constitute the link. Using ‘ASCII angle brackets’ allows me to just paste the link, while keeping link boundaries clearly delineated.
    – user3840170
    Commented Nov 29, 2022 at 10:07

0

Reset to default

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .