t...@tsdye.com (Thomas S. Dye) writes: > Bastien <b...@altern.org> writes: > >> Hi Florian, >> >> Florian Beck <abstrakt...@t-online.de> writes: >> >>> Actually, I meant »tags« in the HTML sense. For <boxed>example</boxed> >>> would call a function during export, which returns, say, its LaTeX >>> interpretation, another function would be called by font lock (or >>> whatever you use) to determine its on screen display. >> >> Well, I'm not in favor of introducing <tag> -- they can be convenient, >> but they degrade readability IMO. > > Aloha all, > > Perhaps they are [[tag:boxed][already]] here with org-add-link-type? It > seems to me that all that's missing is a way to specify a function to > determine on screen display.
Exactly. I don't care about the specific implementation (and org makes a lot of my previous uses superflous). TAGs in the above sense – however implemented – would allow for fine grain control of the output. For example different classes of footnotes with latex/bogfoot or specific handling of citations. Readability is not the issue, imo, because currently my workaround would be to put the whole paragraph in a latex source block – which certainly doesn't improve readability. Tagged text, on the other hand, should and could definity allow for its own on screen display. What is an issue is that (apart from property/source blocks and emphasis) org text is pretty much plain. TAGs could impair that. Currently migrating from muse to org I can certainly attest that any »special handling« certainly impairs portability. -- Florian Beck
