Re: About 'inline special blocks'

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

Hi, Kaushal, thanks for all your interesting comments,

Kaushal Modi writes:

> The challenging part will be deciding the syntax so that there are no
> false matches.
>
> May be reserve "inline_" for inline blocks?
>
> e.g. inline_<name>[options]{text}  ?

It seems to me the most consistent option, if we continue in some way
the syntax of the inline code blocks, which would be the close relatives
of the inline special blocks. Perhaps (to shorten the syntax a bit)
'inline' could be replaced by some reserved symbol. Something like:

&_<name>[options]{text}

I think a major issue would also be how to properly compact <[options]>
so as not to result in too overloaded syntax. Maybe something like:

[latex(list of attributes) html(list of attributes)...]

?

But that is an abuse of direct formatting, which I think should always be
avoided, especially in a format-agnostic environment like Org, which is
more of a logician than a typesetter :-)

And, in any case, it is to be expected that the user will not need to
overload that part, since these hypothetical inline blocks would be
intended for short segments of text within the paragraph. I think the
most typical use case would be something like your 'mark' example.

Best regards,

Juan Manuel