Hi @adambolcsfoldi!

Thank you for your pull request and welcome to our community.

Action Required

In order to merge any pull request (code, docs, etc.), we require contributors to sign our Contributor License Agreement, and we don't seem to have one on file for you.

Process

In order for us to review and merge your suggested changes, please sign at https://code.facebook.com/cla. If you are contributing on behalf of someone else (eg your employer), the individual CLA may not be sufficient and your employer may need to sign the corporate CLA.

Once the CLA is signed, our tooling will perform checks and validations. Afterwards, the pull request will be tagged with CLA signed. The tagging process may take up to 1 hour after signing. Please give it that time before contacting us about it.

If you have received this in error or have any questions, please contact us at cla@meta.com. Thanks!

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project	Deployment	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
lexical	Ready	Preview	Comment	Oct 13, 2025 2:26pm
lexical-playground	Ready	Preview	Comment	Oct 13, 2025 2:26pm

I don't think that strict compliance is useful here, an empty unmergeable TextNode is going to cause other problems (you can't really interact with it). A zwsp might be better if you really wanted to parse such a construct. There are plenty of other instances where better conformance to the commonmark spec would be useful but I don't think this is one of them.

I don't think that strict compliance is useful here, an empty unmergeable TextNode is going to cause other problems (you can't really interact with it). A zwsp might be better if you really wanted to parse such a construct. There are plenty of other instances where better conformance to the commonmark spec would be useful but I don't think this is one of them.

I can definitely get behind that.
However, I do think the current behaviour where the user input just vanishes feels quite broken. Should it then instead not be parsed as a markdown link at all, unless the length of the link text > 0?
So, [](https://lexical.dev) will not be parsed as a link, the same way [some text]() isn't now, but [a](https://lexical.dev) would be and result in a.

That's probably slightly better than dropping it altogether, but I don't have a strong preference about that. lexical isn't specifically a markdown editor so lossless transformation isn't really the expectation. It's certainly something that could be built but not very easily with the architecture of the current @lexical/markdown package (but there's nothing special about that package, someone could publish or contribute a better one).

Closed in favour of a more useful solution here: #7923