More closely follow CommonMark for link auto-generation.

[laurent22]

Current behaviour

• https://example.com => https://example.com
• file://C:\AUTOEXEC.BAT => file://AUTOEXEC.BAT
• example.com => example.com
• oo.ps => oo.ps
• [email protected] => [email protected]
• <https://example.com> => https://example.com

Proposed behaviour

• https://example.com => https://example.com
• file://C:\AUTOEXEC.BAT => file://C:\AUTOEXEC.BAT
• example.com => example.com
• oo.ps => oo.ps
• [email protected] => test@example.com
• <https://example.com> => https://example.com

In general Joplin auto-links too much text, which is not necessary as Markdown already provides way to explicitly create a link. It is reasonable to auto-link URLs that start with a valid URL schemes, but other cases should be disabled.

CommonMark does not auto-link anything except for URLs within < >

[dpoulton-github]

Personal opinion is that Joplin should follow Commonmark. Any active links would have to be explicitly defined using the [name](link) or <link> formats. This would mean that any exported Markdown should be reproduced, as intended by the author, in any other Markdown-based app and would also remove the chance of "false positives".

HOWEVER

I appreciate that a certain amount of "auto-linking" adds somewhat to the ease and speed of use and, if an option to switch off auto-linking is not considered suitable, a logic that minimises "false positives" (as proposed above) sounds like a good compromise. Some URL-like text would still have to be purposefully "neutered" using HTML to break the hyperlink but the occurrance of such situations should be reduced.

[laurent22]

Personal opinion is that Joplin should follow Commonmark.

Yes, ideally I'd prefer to stick closely to the CommonMark spec. It's hard to evaluate whether we really need auto-links for URL-like text. I don't think I need it much personally. Perhaps it's a matter of disabling it completely and see what users will say. We can always document that they should add <> around the URLs.

[tessus]

Well, that's the thing. I believe people are really split on that topic. That's why an option would make sense. Especially since it is just a boolean for the markdown-it renderer. Adding additional code to have a "better" link recognition actually is against your initial sentiment with regards to code maintenance.
Setting a flag however has no maintenance implications.

[laurent22]

Implemented here: #3975