Hello, Christian Moe <m...@christianmoe.com> writes:
> Me, I don't see any problem with a [[ref:something]] syntax. It's the > obvious org-native, cross-backend replacement for \ref. The > [[protocol:something]] syntax already widens the notion of link to > shell: and elisp: links, so I wouldn't worry about breaking > conventions. Using e.g. [[!something]] instead would introduce a brand > new bit of syntax. Not really brand new, since there already are [[#custom-id]] and [[*headline]]. Though, I'd favour [[ref:name]], too. > Suggestion: On export, how about enabling automatic element > descriptions for references following the type:name convention, so > that e.g. just > > : in [[ref:tab:numbers]] we can see... > > would expand to > > in Table 2 we can see... > > If implemented, this should be user-customizable e.g. through an alist > like > > (("fig" . "Figure") ("tab" . "Table") ("map" . "Map")) That's another possibility, but I'd rather follow LaTeX usage. I think it gives user more latitude in the end. Indeed, You don't have to think about a name prefix ; you can also have constructs like "Tables [[ref:table1]], [[ref:table2]] and [[ref:table3]]" for "Tables 1, 2 and 3", etc. Note that the behaviour you suggest can easily be implemented using filters in the new exporter. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou