> We could, but it seems gross. I've seen grosser, but yeah :)
What do you think of the proposed "prefix:" syntax? > I'm not to worried about changing the file format, but I am worried about > limitations due to the file format bubbling up to the end-user interface > (e.g., due to roping off possible characters that could otherwise be used > in a link property name or value). I'd also like to ensure we keep the > parser implementation simple and minimal. Sure. (though complexity it a tough mistress, according to the waterbed theory; I think in this case it will pop up at upgrade) -Artem
