Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes: > Eric Abrahamsen <e...@ericabrahamsen.net> writes: > >> Yup, "annotation mechanism" is about right. Just to be clear, you think >> it fits into the category of incubation-prior-to-core? > > I think so. > >> If anyone thinks that this mechanism warrants actual new Org syntax, I'd >> be happy to work on implementing that. > > I also think a new syntax is needed. But, please, let's keep it as > simple as possible.
We're just talking about annotations-plus-metadata here, right? Not actual in-text TODOs? >From what I can tell, rasmus seems to be proposing an in-text TODO, while John's headed in the direction of replicating Track Changes functionality. I've definitely wanted some sort of a track changes equivalent in Org, but we'd want to be careful about this. Assuming we're just talking about annotations on steriods, here are some things I'd personally like to have: 1. Annotations attached to arbitrary text in the buffer. The buffer text should be visible, the annotation data invisible (basically the way links work right now). 2. Plain annotation: just a chunk of free-form paragraph text that is attached to the buffer text. 3. Replacement text: an alternate version of the buffer text; this could be the basis of track changes stuff. 4. Timestamps 5. Custom highlighting 6. Full element status: this would allow parsing of the various properties, and more fully-featured export options. 7. "Author" metadata would probably be unnecessary with full access to the export channels, but it might still be desirable. 8. Options-line switches to export with annotation, export without annotation, and export using replacement text. That's all I can think of, just trying to get the ball rolling. I don't have any opinions about actual syntax, though something with curly braces might be nice. Eric
