> On Oct 4, 2022, at 6:31 AM, Albert Krewinkel <albert+pandoc-9EawChwDxG8hFhg+JK9F0w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> Mmmh, good point. My initial idea was to use the format's default
> extension when no `extensions` field is given. But that's confusing,
> because now omitting the `extensions` field can have multiple meanings
> ("fall back to reader options" or "use default extensions"), depending
> on which other fields are set. Not a good interface.
Not sure about this, but what about?
- if no `extensions` field is present, then default extensions for that format are used, as possibly modified by `+` or `-` in the format specifier
Wouldn't it be better if `+`/`-` in the `format` field be an error condition if the format argument is a table? Least confusing IMO.