[POLL] Do you need special entities in radio target?

[POLL] Do you need special entities in radio target?

[Bastien]

Hi all,

the subject says it all -- see this thread for reference:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.orgmode/83648

Would you be okay if radio targets like <<<radio target>>>
are limited to plain text?

Thanks for your feedback,

-- 
 Bastien

Re: [POLL] Do you need special entities in radio target?

[Samuel Wales]

imo radio targets are fundamentally limited because they only work in
the same file, while org has become a multi-file mode.  i am ok with
cosmetic limitations in addition.

-- 
The Kafka Pandemic: http://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com

The disease DOES progress.  MANY people have died from it.  And
ANYBODY can get it.

Denmark: free Karina Hansen NOW.

Re: [POLL] Do you need special entities in radio target?

[Christian Moe]

Excluding special entities would not interfere with anything I've done
with radio targets so far. I can imagine future uses, but probably
nothing I couldn't work around with Unicode.

But is this only about special entities, or about all Org syntax,
including subscripts/superscripts, emphasis...? That would be
limiting. As long as radio targets are visible parts of the text, I'd
like them to continue supporting such markup.

Yours,
Christian





Bastien writes:

> Hi all,
>
> the subject says it all -- see this thread for reference:
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.orgmode/83648
>
> Would you be okay if radio targets like <<<radio target>>>
> are limited to plain text?
>
> Thanks for your feedback,

Re: [POLL] Do you need special entities in radio target?

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Hello,

Christian Moe <mail@christianmoe.com> writes:

> But is this only about special entities, or about all Org syntax,

the latter.

> including subscripts/superscripts, emphasis...? That would be
> limiting. As long as radio targets are visible parts of the text, I'd
> like them to continue supporting such markup.

So far, radio targets only support entities, subscript and superscript.
Emphasis is not supported. I don't think it's a limitation, though,
because radio targets can be contained within emphasis markup.


Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou

Re: [POLL] Do you need special entities in radio target?

[Christian Moe]

Nicolas Goaziou writes:
> Christian Moe <...> writes:
>
>> But is this only about special entities, or about all Org syntax,
>
> the latter.

Thanks for clarifying.

>> including subscripts/superscripts, emphasis...? That would be
>> limiting. As long as radio targets are visible parts of the text, I'd
>> like them to continue supporting such markup.
>
> So far, radio targets only support entities, subscript and superscript.
> Emphasis is not supported. I don't think it's a limitation, though,
> because radio targets can be contained within emphasis markup.

Sorry, I overlooked that. So both under the status quo and under the
proposed change, emphasis is possible. Mixed emphasis/non-emphasis
within the target (e.g. <<<creation /ex nihilo/>>>) is not supported in
either case, so the change would not further limit use of emphasis.

It would be nice to keep support for subscripts and superscripts,
though. One might want to use, say, "CO_2" in a radio target.

But this is not a pressing concern on my part, since I don't rely on
radio targets for anything very important anyway.

Yours,
Christian