On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Eric S Fraga <e.fr...@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Friday, 9 Dec 2016 at 15:29, John Kitchin wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I have an idea for how I could transclude "copies" or links to > > [...] > > > Any thoughts? Do you see any potential issues? > > Potentially very interesting and useful idea. Some thoughts/issues: > > I'm interested in this, too. In my lab notebook org file, I have a section that should be put into its own file and either linked or transcluded in several places. Transclusion would be better because I could see the text without following a link. It suits my lazy nature. ;-) > ... > > - what about more than level of indirection: link to a trancluded > headline which transcludes to another etc. What is shown? Is there a > performance hit? > > It seems to me that transclusion should be transitive. A transcluded org file should be able to transclude other org files. It should be transclusion all the way down. It also seems to me that org-mode transclusion must detect cycles so that it does not infinitely transclude documents. - what happens if the destination moves or gets deleted? the link to > it, which looked like something "complete" is now meaningless. This > could be quite confusing. This is probably the most serious issue. > How does org-mode handle broken links now? That's probably the right way to handle broken transclusion. > - the table aspect is almost a "view" on a database which is really > appealing but would benefit from a fully defined syntax a la sql? > Would table formulas work as expected from the view of the contents? > > Why wouldn't table formulas work? Transclusion is/could be/should be just another way to put org-mode formatted text into an org-mode buffer. ... > > - could we have "read-only" views? I may not want the original touched. > Perhaps that would be property of the transcluded document. > - how does an export work? On the view or the actual contents? > > Export works on the view.
