Re: #+LINK abbrevs possible in #+INCLUDEs ?

[Detlef Steuer <detlef.steuer@gmx.de>]

> Hello,
> 
> Detlef Steuer <detlef.steuer@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> > I have two files:
> >
> > file1.org:
> > --------------------
> > #+LINK: HOME http://example.de
> >
> > * My Homepage You can find my homepage [[HOME][here]]
> >
> > #+INCLUDE: file2.org
> > --------------------
> >
> > file2.org --------------------
> > #+LINK: HOME2 http://other.example.de
> >
> > * My other page
> >   You can find my other page [[HOME2][here]]
> > --------------------
> >
> > I can export file2.org to html as expected.
> >
> > I can´t export file1.org to html with the included file2.org.
> > Only if I move the #+LINK line from file2 to file1 the export
> > works as expected.
> >
> > In my setting file2.org must export standalone, so moving the LINKs
> > to file1 is no option. An ugly workaround would be to include the
> > abbreviation for HOME2 in both files.  Ugly.
> >
> > Is there a woraround/setting to have local #+LINK directives
> > working in included files?
> 
> You can extract out #+LINK: keywords in a file, e.g. "setup.org" and
> use #+SETUPFILE: ... in both "file1.org" and "file2.org".

OK, but still this is kind of ugly, because the LINKs really are file
specific for ,- in the long run -,  multiple files.


> 
> You can also use 
> 
>   #+SETUPFILE: file2.org
> 
> in "file1.org".
>

The real file2.org is somewhat big and would be scanned completely,
wouldn't it?

> Set-up (e.g., link abbreviations) is not refreshed after expanding
> INCLUDE keywords. I cannot remember why, tho. Maybe for (dubious)
> efficiency reasons.
> 

If you don't remember, may be it would be possible to try it out?
Would love it and as a feature it looks natural for an included file! 

Thank you for the hints!

Regards
Detlef

> 
> Regards,
>