Tim Cross <theophil...@gmail.com> writes: >> 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.
I think that we might simply allow to define complex configuration before the containing paragraph. Something like: #+attr_latex[name]: <complex config goes here> Vestibulum convallis, lorem blockname_[<<name>>]{text} a tempus semper, dui dui euismod elit, vitae placerat urna tortor vitae lacus. "<<name>>" will be treated as "<complex config goes here>" during export/parsing. I am purposely reusing #+keyword[secondary] and <<name>> syntax to keep things similar to other existing elements. Best, Ihor