Hi Maxim,
Max Nikulin writes:
> More explicit markup leaves less room for ambiguities, and I like the
> idea due to this reason. On the other hand it diverges from principle
> of lightweight markup. The almost only special character in TeX is
> "\", HTML has three ones "&<>" with simple escape rules. Org uses many
> special characters to avoid verbosity and requires some tricks to
> escape them. Markers like "\{" make Org more verbose but do not make
> it more strict, a lot of things still rely on heuristics.
Excellent explanation. Thanks for the clarification.
> I have an idea what can be done when some special markup is required
> that is not fit into current syntax. Unfortunately some new constructs
> should be introduced anyway: inline objects and multiline elements
> that represent simplified result of parsed Org structures:
>
> ((italic "intra") "word")
>
> wrapped with some markup. It should satisfy any special needs (and
> even should allow to create invalid impossible constructs). Maybe idea
> of combination of lightweight markup and low-level blocks better suits
> for some other project with more expressive internal representation.
> In Org it may become the most hated feature.
I really would like a solution in this direction. In LaTeX there is a
command called \protect (which has nothing to do with this topic and is
used for other things, but I like the 'protection' concept); we could
perhaps think of a type of mark to protect the 'usual' marks when syntax
consistency is compromised in some way by the context. Maybe something
like enclosing the normal marks between two double single quotes ''...''
---or a single set of single quotes before the leading marker--- as I
proposed in another thread:
#+begin_example
''*protected emphasis*''
#+end_example
Best regards,
Juan Manuel
