Re: About 'inline special blocks'

[Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com>]

On 24/05/2022 09:51, Timothy wrote:
> 
> To me, this is another reason for comment and #+attr_X lines not to break
> paragraphs, as then we can just re-use #+attr_X lines.

I like the idea that comments and attribute lines should not be 
paragraph separators. I expect, it should alleviate the issue that LaTeX 
and Org paragraphs may significantly differ. Do somebody has examples 
when such change will cause negative effects (besides broken 
compatibility, of course)?

> ┌────
> │ Hi there look at
> │ #+attr_X: :prop val
> │ inline_mark{some content}
> │ and now continuing the paragraph...
> └────

However I am afraid that using the same construct for block-level 
elements and inline object will cause confusion. Consider a paragraph 
starting from a link. Which attributes belongs to the whole paragraph 
and which ones should affect the starting link only?

I consider attributes specific to an inline object as a great feature, 
but I am unsure if it requires special inline object. Would not it be 
enough to allow attributes for already existing objects (emphasis, 
links, citations)? It is feasible to require from external tools such as 
pandoc to support special blocks (likely implemented in lisp code)?

Concerning fear that complicated attributes makes text hardly readable, 
macros might be a rescue, but it would depend on implementation.

I had an idea to implement proof-of-concept for inline attributes using 
a special link type and a parse tree filter that transfers attributes to 
the next object. Unfortunately time related bugs in Emacs appeared to be 
rather time consuming.

---- >8 ----
#+macro: nofollow [[attr:(:html (:rel "nofollow noopener"))]]

An {{{nofollow}}[[attr:(:html (:title "be 
careful!"))]][[http://unsafe.com][unsafe link]].
---- 8< ----

Such implementation would allow to test if it convenient enough and 
whether special blocks are really necessary.