Re: About 'inline special blocks'

[Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com>]

Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com> writes:

>> 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 :-)
>
> I think this is a really important point. Whenever we add formatting
> specific directives, we always end up in a somewhat uncertain situation
> with respect to the other back ends. I also feel that in-line blocks
> which support large and complex formatting configuration really defeat
> the purpose of an in=line block (which I feel should be kept relatively
> simple). I also find complex constructs of this form really degrades the
> readability of source documents. 

I think that we might simply allow to define complex configuration
before the containing paragraph. Something like:

#+attr_latex[name]: <complex config goes here>
Vestibulum convallis, lorem blockname_[<<name>>]{text} a tempus semper, dui
dui euismod elit, vitae placerat urna tortor vitae lacus.

"<<name>>" will be treated as "<complex config goes here>" during
export/parsing.

I am purposely reusing #+keyword[secondary] and <<name>> syntax to keep
things similar to other existing elements.

Best,
Ihor