Samuel Wales <samolog...@gmail.com> writes:
> if everybody is already thinking along the same lines, great.
I think everybody is thinking along the lines, but some people want to not
have another link-morass :) In particular, I think we are trying hard to
avoid this situation:
i just think the syntax we design should, if possible, be so general
that it can be used for future features, *including 100% unrelated
features*, and also for future subfeatures of any feature, including
citations.
These days, my impression is that Org developers like to have [fn:·]
always be of a footnote type and *bold* always be of bold type.
> to me, that means plist or similar.
A lambda (that is a cite-subtype) is ∞ more customizable than a plist.
But at least by having a cite-like prefix Org forces you to write
something unappealing like,
[cite:color-bar-pink-and-change-bar-to-baz: foo @bar]
Which might discourage you to something stupid.
A generalization of, say macros and link which look like [FUN: :key value]
or [FUN: arg]{:key value} may be appropriate, but it's something
different from the discussion at hand.
—Rasmus
--
Hvor meget poesi tror De kommer ud af et glas isvand?
