On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 05:17:35AM +0000, Ihor Radchenko wrote:
> abq@bitrot.link writes:
> 
> > And can anybody think of any costs besides the ones already mentioned? 
> > Any adverse interaction with other features?
> 
> Export. If those special "continuations" are not considered sections
> structurally, it is unclear how to represent them when exporting to
> LaTeX/HTML/etc. The most painful is situation with third-party exporters
> that may need to be adapted.

That's why I was suggesting a "low profile" approach. "Official" Org
shouldn't have to care about it (after all, for those interested, it
isn't that difficult to make a derived exporter). Perhaps that "feature"
ends up as something needing special exporters (after all, for
(La)TeX, Markdown, (possibly?) OpenDocument, the exporters will have
to do "funny stuff", because the target document model doesn't know
what we are talking about.

For this idea to bear any weight, I think first is having interested
users agreeing on some conventions. The tools will come, I wouldn't
start with those (perhaps only as proof of concept, to test and
validate ideas).

It'd be too early now to commit Org to that, potentially ossifying
stuff of which we don't know yet whether it is a good idea at all.

As far as I am concerned, I don't think the feature is important
enough to complexify Org, but (a) I see that there are people who
really want it (and offer myself as sparring partner to bounce ideas
off) and (b) Org is chock full of features I'd rather not have,
but others need badly. Software is like that :-)

Thanks & cheers
-- 
t