From: Nicolas Goaziou <email@example.com>
To: Thorsten Jolitz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Tabular overview of org-element.el
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 21:07:10 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <email@example.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (Thorsten Jolitz's message of "Sat, 20 Apr 2013 20:45:53 +0200")
Thorsten Jolitz <email@example.com> writes:
> So in fact there are link objects that might belong to 'decorated-link'
> or 'plain-link', but this has not been made explicit because there is
> only one special case where its not sufficient to simply use super-type
That and the fact that it was introduced very recently.
> Maybe its worth to notice that wrt 'plain-link' there are some hidden
> implicit things going on in the background. First of all, there are no
> other subtypes of object-types - object 'link' would be the only
> object-type with two subtypes ('plain-link' and 'decorated-link' or
> whatever). And the object 'link' is used as successor but does not fit
> all situations where a link can be used.
Actually there is also `radio-link' sub-type. But it doesn't need its
own successor function so far.
> I know this might be of no practical relevance at the moment, and might
> seem like a case of excessive pea-counting, but now that Org-mode has
> such a wonderful parsing and exporting framework, there might well be a
> trend towards more formalization in the future - and this will cause
> hiccups for anyone who tries such formalization.
To be honest, I hope that Org will grow a proper syntax for images
instead (i.e. without overloading link syntax). Many (most?) text markup
languages have one (e.g. Markdown). If it does, the `plain-link'
successor becomes useless and the case is closed.
> 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,
which could possibly be extended with properties for export:
[img:"...." :prop1 val1 :prop2 val2]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-20 19:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-04-20 15:18 Tabular overview of org-element.el Thorsten Jolitz
2013-04-20 16:34 ` Nicolas Goaziou
2013-04-20 17:15 ` Thorsten Jolitz
2013-04-20 17:42 ` Nicolas Goaziou
2013-04-20 18:45 ` Thorsten Jolitz
2013-04-20 19:07 ` Nicolas Goaziou [this message]
2013-04-20 20:45 ` Thorsten Jolitz
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
List information: https://www.orgmode.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).