From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Abrahamsen Subject: Re: Marking/highlighting text temporarily Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 20:34:23 +0800 Message-ID: <87mw1r865s.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> References: <87a8xyrn39.fsf@pinto.chemeng.ucl.ac.uk> <87bnieufde.fsf@mbork.pl> <87zj5xewsp.fsf@pinto.chemeng.ucl.ac.uk> <87iockmyxy.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <87bnicshhc.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <87r3r57zre.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <87lhhb2uot.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <87oam7p6a7.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46445) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YnRCb-000595-Vl for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 08:34:59 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YnRCY-0005Mv-NL for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 08:34:57 -0400 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:38795) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YnRCY-0005Mp-GP for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 08:34:54 -0400 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YnRCR-0008SY-M7 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 14:34:47 +0200 Received: from 114.248.23.63 ([114.248.23.63]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 14:34:47 +0200 Received: from eric by 114.248.23.63 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 14:34:47 +0200 List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Nicolas Goaziou writes: > Hello, > > Eric Abrahamsen writes: > >> I'm copying Nicolas -- Nicolas, is there a process for inclusion in >> contrib? Would this be eligible? I'll just stick it in Elpa, >> otherwise. > > Any package is eligible. > > However, contrib/ is from pre-"package.el" days. Nowadays, I tend to > think it should be used only as an incubator for libraries meant to be > moved into core. Other libraries should be packaged in ELPA. > > I admit I didn't read the thread carefully. IIUC, it seems to be an > annotation mechanism. If I'm correct, I think it belongs to the first > category. Yup, "annotation mechanism" is about right. Just to be clear, you think it fits into the category of incubation-prior-to-core? If anyone thinks that this mechanism warrants actual new Org syntax, I'd be happy to work on implementing that. But to be honest, I think it sits pretty comfortably on top of what's already available. The only slight awkwardness comes when you'd like a different face for the annotation links (currently solved with John Kitchin's hi-lock trick), and the fact that the link export routines don't have access to the exportation info/plist channels (ie, when exporting an annotation link to ODT, I'd like to be able to give the annotation an "author" element, but as far as I know I can't get access to that). These aren't major flaws. All that said, I do think this is an important feature that fills a bit of gap in Org. TODOs are fundamental, but they are discrete entities. Those of us who use Org for authoring could use a method of decorating spans of text with pertinent information. As org-comment stands now, the tabular list buffer serves as a pseudo Agenda for text comments: I have been using it, for example, as a way of keeping track of translation problems that I need to resolve. I'll admit I have dreamed of a syntax that looks like: [[body text to annotate][TODO:Look this up on the internet:@work]]. The thought of plugging that in to the existing Agenda machine is exhausting even to contemplate, though. I know we've got inlinetodos. They bug me, though: the absurd number of stars (even if they are invisible), and the fact that you're still not really attaching the TODO to specific text, which is what I want. I know these aren't reasonable objections, but still. Now I wish we'd named it org-annotate. I'm done, Eric