> > Links are currently defined by an open function and an export function. > It might be interesting if org added a third function to this set, a > fontification function. > > OTOH we would have to consider if links are the best place to add this > functionality. The work you have done on org-ref and other projects > (which I greatly admire!) (ab)uses links as an analogue of HTML’s span > element: a way to encapsulate and attach attributes to a > sub-paragraph-sized chunk of text whose semantics are somewhat > amorphous. Your example here pushes that further, using the link for > pure formatting: it no longer “links” to anything at all (and thus > probably should not have an associated open function nor be click-active > in the buffer).
Thanks! I have had a lot fun stretching the intended uses of the mighty link ;) you might click on it to change its color, or remove the link, maybe all red text is glossary word that you can click on to get a definition... I think there is a lot of potential advantage in changing the color of a link. org-ref does already, to differentiate cite, ref and label links, but the faces are static. > I think “Spans” are something org should support, but not by co-opting > links to do it. We ought to either make new syntax, or change the name > of “links” to “spans” and say the former are a special case of the > latter (preserving backwards compatibility of existing documents to the > extent possible of course, but also doing our best to free ourselves of > link-specific implementation details like percent-escaping). Spans sounds like a generalized link syntax to me. Something like here: http://kitchingroup.cheme.cmu.edu/blog/2015/02/05/Extending-the-org-mode-link-syntax-with-attributes/ In the end I am not sure it makes much difference if we call it a link or span. I have often wanted something different than a link, but that was "linky", and still an org-element and more like the example above. It would make a lot of things easier, like citations, annotations, etc... Wait till you see the (ab)use of the new citation syntax which looks more like a span than anything else ;) > > FWIW, HTH, > Aaron > > PS I think if we had spans 2-3 years ago, then you would have used them > to implement org-ref, and that code would already be in core. I think > the same would be true of annotations, for which we’ve recently had a > well-responded thread with several code contribtions, including from you > IIRC. On the other hand I don’t think we want org to become like Latex, > where almost all documents require a complicated web of third-party > dependencies to “work” at all. It’s a delicate balance... Agreed. The documents are still plain text in the end, and readable if you do it right. -- Professor John Kitchin Doherty Hall A207F Department of Chemical Engineering Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 412-268-7803 @johnkitchin http://kitchingroup.cheme.cmu.edu
