Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

I notice that when I read answers I usually end up following some long train of thought that the author intended to illustrate. Or whenever I answer a question I often want to say, "first read this link, then move on to this article which it references for more in-depth information."

I was wondering whether this kind of navigational pattern should be integrated into Markdown. So that apart from placing a link I can also define a Train-Of-Thought.

Something like this:

{TOT(link1[this is an overview],link2[this is an in-depth review of the reasons],
 link3[this is new technology references],link4[this is a bashing blog post])}

And the resulting answer would look something like this:


  • this is an overview - link
  • in-depth review of the reasons - link
  • new technology reference - link
  • bashing post - link
share|improve this question
I don't exactly understand what you are asking for here. What keeps you from posting your train of thought with a normal Markup list? Why would you complicate the syntax for this feature? – Joachim Sauer Jun 21 '11 at 7:14
well one possible reason would be to group all the links together in a sort of a flow. The idea being that one would lead to another, I understand that the format I presented is not a big improvement, I'm trying to take a step in that direction – Asaf Jun 21 '11 at 7:22

I strongly disagree with this suggestion.

One of the most important features of Markup is it's relative simplicity (when compare to other Wiki-like or almost-text formats).

Adding special-case syntax for very limited use cases (and with a very specific semantic meaning) will not improve this.

While I can see the benefit of occasionally posting a train of thought on a thorough answer, I see no reason to add an additional syntax construct for this, when a simple list with links works just fine.

share|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .