Re: Re: Limited #+INCLUDE ?

[Samuel Wales <samologist@gmail.com>]

Hi Dan,

On 2010-04-27, Dan Davison <davison@stats.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Another way to look at it is that this is an annotation mechanism.  It
>> can be used for any type of file or buffer.  This would include text,
>> websites (i.e. pointing to and annotating documents on the web),
>> dired, source code, org files, html source, etc.
>>
>> Modifying existing link syntax will be difficult, especially because
>> there might be additional features we need a year or two from now.
>> For maximum flexibility and simplicity, this might be a good first use
>> of extensible syntax.
>
> Hi Samuel,
>
> I'm not quite clear what you're referring to when you say "this" in the
> above sentences. Also, when you say "extensible syntax", are you
> referring to the existing link syntax, or to a proposed extension?

"this" means the idea in this thread.

Extensible syntax is a specific, documented proposal.  I posted some
of the idea to this list a long time ago, as Carsten pointed out.

One application of extensible syntax is "this".  :)

You can use extensible syntax for any feature you want.  "this" is
links with special subfeatures that would be difficult to program into
ordinary link syntax.

Samuel

>
> Thanks,
>
> Dan
>
>>
>> Samuel
>


-- 
Q: How many CDC "scientists" does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: "You only think it's dark." [CDC has denied a deadly disease for 25 years]
==========
Retrovirus: http://www.wpinstitute.org/xmrv/index.html