On Wed, 2018-03-14 at 14:26 +0100, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > Hello, > > > I think this kind of linking is useful for many general cases. Christian > > has expressed concerns that such links are easily breakable which is > > true but only for documents that are in draft phase (or those which are > > supposed to be restructured on regular basis - like ToDo lists). However > > documents that has been published, like books or scientific papers, and > > will no longer change - will benefit greatly from such linking option. > > Imagine you have a scientific paper in your archive that you have > > already published and removed write access from it in order not to > > change it accidentally. You do want to reference certain > > chapter:section:subsection from it in your new paper, which you are > > currently writing, but creating a target <<chapter:section:subsection>> > > in the old paper is no longer an option... > > > > So may I ask as a feature request, to please add, following link type as > > standard to the org-mode: > > > > [[path/to/file.org::chapter:section:subsection:etc:optional target]] > > > > - chapter/section/subsection could be also just numbers > > - optional target target might be <<optional target target>> > > - there is no need to add '*' (like > > [[path/to/file.org::*chapter:section]] to the link, as ':' after '::' > > imply that headings are referred. > > > > Thank you! > > Again, even in the case you are talking about, CUSTOM_ID is better, for > at least two reasons: > - it leads to much simpler links: [[file.org::#my-id]]
Why [[file.org::#1:2:1]] is nicer than [file.org::1:2:1]]? > - it translates nicely to "id" tag in HTML. You can generate the "id" tag in HTML like this 1-2-1 (if HTML dislikes 1:2:1 tag) > > I understand this was not so useful in your use case (only headlines, no > contents), but, it is still valid as a general mechanism. Isn't a good idea to add such a built in link type in the long term? Thank you!