Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaz...@gmail.com> writes:
>> To keep the system consistent, there should be two types of link objects
>> ('plain-link' and 'decorated-link') that are both successors too, and
>> maybe additionally a successor category 'link' that can be applied when
>> distinction between the two link object-types does not matter.
>
> That's what I talked about indeed, but besides consistency, there's not
> much benefit to do that. I'd rather have images as full-fledged objects,
> something like:
>
> [img:"...."]
>
> which could possibly be extended with properties for export:
>
> [img:"...." :prop1 val1 :prop2 val2]
That sounds like a very good idea to me, from the point of view of a
user, and from the point of view of somebody who tries to understand the
system you used for modeling Org files. And consistency can turn out
very beneficial in the long run, even if the benefits are not so obvious
at the moment.
--
cheers,
Thorsten
