Re: [proof of concept] inline language blocks

["Juan Manuel Macías" <maciaschain@posteo.net>]

Ihor Radchenko writes:

> Juan Manuel Macías <maciaschain@posteo.net> writes:
>
>> Ihor Radchenko writes:
>>> This is a good idea, although it would be better to make this new markup
>>> element within the framework of more general inline special block we
>>> discussed in the past: https://list.orgmode.org/orgmode/87a6b8pbhg.fsf@posteo.net/
>>
>> Fun fact: the local branch is called inline-special-block, because I
>> originally had that idea in mind when I created it. Then, halfway
>> through, I doubted whether it wouldn't be better to have a specific
>> inline language selector, whose use would be as direct as an emphasis
>> mark. So in the branch there is also a "proto"-inline-special-block with
>> similar syntax: &foo{}.
>>
>> I opted for the -language-block version because, as I said, its use is
>> very 'direct' and covers a common need to segment multilingual text
>> within the paragraph.
>
> My main point is that we should use the same syntax with inline special
> blocks. Similar to how #+begin_verse uses the same syntax as special
> blocks.
>
> We need to finalize inline special block syntax first, and then talk
> about special cases like inline language markup you propose.

As I already said, in my local branch I have both elements created,
based on the same syntax:

- language block: :lang{text}

- special block &type{text}

the latter would be exported, for example, to html as <span class="type">text</span> or to LaTeX as \type{text}

I like the syntax because it is minimalist and not verbose at all. That
could serve as a basis (at least it is good to have a starting point,
because otherwise everything will be diluted in discussions). Then we
can start thinking about whether to add options and how to add them.

>> I think at the time we also discussed whether or not it would be a good
>> idea to provide the inline special blocks with options and attributes,
>> like their older brothers. And how to do it. My biggest concern here is
>> the (let's say) latexification of the paragraph. I mean, one of the
>> great things about Org versus heavier markup like LaTeX is that when org
>> wants to be verbose it uses dedicated lines, but usually keeps the
>> paragraphs clean and readable. I think that any element inside the
>> paragraph should tend to be as "transparent" as simple emphasis marks.
>>
>> I remember that there was also discussion about puting the options
>> outside the paragraph, using some type of identifier. It doesn't seem
>> like a bad idea to me, but I think it adds an extra complication for the
>> user. It would be very tedious for me to write like this (even more
>> tedious than writing in LaTeX).
>
> I still believe that we should /allow/ options inside inline block-type
> markup. This is often necessary in practice. For example, I recommend
> studying
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wikitext#Templates_and_transcluding_pages
> and how they had to use ugly |... extensions to provide options.
>
> But it does not mean that users /have to/ use these options. In fact, we
> might design the inline language blocks to ignore options.

The wiki language is for a specific purpose, and I wouldn't consider it
a lightweight markup language, although it is certainly less thick than
html.

Actually I'm just expressing my concerns and doubts, I'm not objecting
to anything. I remember reading in the pandoc issues, a long time ago,
similar discussions every time they talked about extending the markup. I
don't know if it's a good idea to stick to a certain point to preserve
the nature of a lightweight markup language and accept certain intrinsic
limitations instead of providing options that probably have very little
use or can be resolved by some export filter. I don't have a definite
opinion, I'm just raising my doubts. Although I really value simplicity
and minimalism.


-- 
Juan Manuel Macías -- Composición tipográfica, tratamiento de datos, diseño editorial y ortotipografía