On Wed, 2018-03-14 at 19:32 +0100, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > ST <smn...@gmail.com> writes: > > > Why [[file.org::#1:2:1]] is nicer than [file.org::1:2:1]]? > > Because you can write something more meaningful than "1:2:1" when using > a CUSTOM_ID. > > >> - it translates nicely to "id" tag in HTML. > > > > You can generate the "id" tag in HTML like this 1-2-1 (if HTML dislikes > > 1:2:1 tag) > > CUSTOM_ID is built-in, without implementing anything. > > > Isn't a good idea to add such a built in link type in the long term? > > IMO, Org has enough internal link types. > > In particular, this one brings little value compared to CUSTOM_ID. It is > fragile wrt re-ordering, refiling, capture... It may be a headache to > export, too, because "1.2.1" may mean something entirely different once > non-exportable trees have been pruned.
Sure, numbers were just a short abstract example. This can very well be: fruits:apples:jonagold > > No offence intended, but it really sounds like a false good idea. You definitely have more experience with org (I'm just learning), so you indeed know better :)
