I've not got a lot to add here. I'm not against the idea, but Juan makes some points below which I think are particularly important and wanted to add weight to them!
Juan Manuel Macías <maciasch...@posteo.net> writes: > Hi, Kaushal, thanks for all your interesting comments, > > Kaushal Modi writes: > >> The challenging part will be deciding the syntax so that there are no >> false matches. >> >> May be reserve "inline_" for inline blocks? >> >> e.g. inline_<name>[options]{text} ? > > It seems to me the most consistent option, if we continue in some way > the syntax of the inline code blocks, which would be the close relatives > of the inline special blocks. Perhaps (to shorten the syntax a bit) > 'inline' could be replaced by some reserved symbol. Something like: > > &_<name>[options]{text} > I agree. Selection of the 'symbol' might be tricky, but the idea is sound. > I think a major issue would also be how to properly compact <[options]> > so as not to result in too overloaded syntax. Maybe something like: > > [latex(list of attributes) html(list of attributes)...] > > ? > > But that is an abuse of direct formatting, which I think should always be > avoided, especially in a format-agnostic environment like Org, which is > more of a logician than a typesetter :-) I think this is a really important point. Whenever we add formatting specific directives, we always end up in a somewhat uncertain situation with respect to the other back ends. I also feel that in-line blocks which support large and complex formatting configuration really defeat the purpose of an in=line block (which I feel should be kept relatively simple). I also find complex constructs of this form really degrades the readability of source documents. > > And, in any case, it is to be expected that the user will not need to > overload that part, since these hypothetical inline blocks would be > intended for short segments of text within the paragraph. I think the > most typical use case would be something like your 'mark' example. > Yes, that was my thinking as well.