I did not mean to criticize. Now I see why I was under the (false?) impression that headings should be made anchor targets in the use case above: I had downloaded textadept editor, and in it's doc [files](https://foicica.com/hg/textadept/file/b048357bd1be/doc) , after download of textadept, there was not only `manual.md` but also `manual.html` (exactly same as the online [one](https://foicica.com/textadept/manual.html) ) That is where I found that style of TOC and references to headings, while the `manual.html` had correct anchors besides the referenced headings. I don't know precisely how Textadept's author did the conversion .md->.html (I think [discount](http://www.pell.portland.or.us/~orc/Code/discount/).
> I don't believe either the original or CommonMark specs say anything about > making headings as anchor targets. You are right, neither of them specify that. The original author of Markdown, to make this page https://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax with TOC, had simply used inline html inside the `.md` filr https://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax.text, like this: ``` * [Overview](#overview) ... <h2 id="overview">Overview</h2> ``` While the authors of https://spec.commonmark.org/0.28/ used [this](https://github.com/commonmark/CommonMark/blob/master/spec.txt) `.md` source , which skips the "Contents" part entirely: I guess they used a separate tool to get the TOC in the final html. However: I still think it would be useful (as even the example pages of specifications above illustrate) to have some kind of automatic support for making a TOC. What do you think? > Are you sure you're not using some non-standard extension from some other > Markdown renderer? Like I wrote above, I'm just using what geany and geany-plugins came with. I have no idea where to get a "non-standard extension from some other Markdown renderer ". Why do you ask? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/geany/geany-plugins/issues/771#issuecomment-419729350
