Max Nikulin <maniku...@gmail.com> writes:
>> IMHO, the whole point of the discussed construct is exactly being abstract
>> and multi-purpose.
>
> Almost everything in Org syntax may be called "markup", so using this
> word for a specific object may lead to confusion unless a couple of
> extra words are added to make it clear what kind of markup is referred to.
Yup. "inline custom markup". I feel that it's enough. Do I miss something?
> I had an idea to name new object "markup macro" since its role is close
> to existing macro ("substitution macro"), but I discarded it because
> "markup" is too general.
I do not find "too general" as a big problem.
I am not sure if I like macro. "macro" feels like something replaced
literally, without extra processing. But the proposed object has little
to do with literal replacement.
>>> Decorators sometimes stressed as "inline decorators"?
>>
>> I dislike "decorators" because it is not a term we use anywhere in Org
>> mode. I'd prefer to reuse an existing term, if at all possible.
>
> I had a hope to find a unique word that will be convenient for usage in
> discussions, a term that will be uniformly used in the manual and in the
> syntax specification.
Manual was one of the reasons I chose "markup". Because this word is
used in "Markup for Rich Contents" section of the manual. Further, we
refer to "markup" when talking about emphasis/monospace in "12.2
Emphasis and Monospace" section.
> If others are happy to name "block" instances that are neither solid nor
> shaped as blocks then I see no point to continue this discussion.
I am slightly in favor of "markup" vs. "block".
> P.S. I am neutral in respect to "span".
I do not like this for the same reason as "decorators" - unfamiliar
terminology.
--
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at <https://orgmode.org/>.
Support Org development at <https://liberapay.com/org-mode>,
or support my work at <https://liberapay.com/yantar92>
