Hi Samuel,
Samuel Wales <samolog...@gmail.com> writes:
> On 2/20/15, Rasmus <ras...@gmx.us> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> this means that we are not thinking along the same lines.
>
> what i am describing is what i described years ago in several posts.
> it was mentioned recently [and on john's blog], then discussion went
> back to citation-specific syntax.
As I said an arbitrary [fun: arg :key val] is great. It might solve what
I (perhaps unfairly) dubbed the "link-morass", since it has no
description.
> i am not proposing hijacking existing syntax; i am proposing the
> opposite. i am proposing a single, new, unambiguous syntax. e.g.
>
> $[feature args... :key value ...]
> ...
> $[color-start "red"]red$[color-end "red"]
^^^ This is already supported via a macros (for export at least):
{{{color-start red, red}}}
#+MACRO: color-start @@html:<span ⋯ style=f($1)>$2</span@@@@latex:⋯@@
> [i am just making this up as i go along to give you the general idea.]
>
> notice how we did not need to invent new syntax!
I sympathize with the idea. Surely (some years ago I *wanted* to write
the generalized "link", but lacked time and skillz).
But citations is a different beast and fixed syntax is what is needed.
>>> to me, that means plist or similar.
>>
>> A lambda (that is a cite-subtype) is ∞ more customizable than a plist.
>
> i don't think i'd favor anything that must eval. security issues,
> among other things.
I too worry about the NSA backdoors in self-insert-command. . .
If you don't allow a generalized link to follow a user-specified λs then
you don't have a flexible syntax that you expressed desire for above.
You'd still have to wait for somebody "upstream" to develop
[color-start:⋯].
>> 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.
>
> i'm not sure i am explaining my point well here.
You are. I just don't agree citation support should be generalized to a
more abstract level at this point. What Org desperately needs in terms of
reproducible, scientific writing is a rigorous, standard syntax.
—Rasmus
--
Dung makes an excellent fertilizer
