[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal
From: |
Samuel Wales |
Subject: |
Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal |
Date: |
Fri, 20 Feb 2015 15:33:59 -0700 |
hi rasmus,
On 2/20/15, Rasmus <address@hidden> wrote:
> I think everybody is thinking along the lines, but some people want to not
> have another link-morass :) In particular, I think we are trying hard to
> avoid this situation:
>
> i just think the syntax we design should, if possible, be so general
> that it can be used for future features, *including 100% unrelated
> features*, and also for future subfeatures of any feature, including
> citations.
this means that we are not thinking along the same lines.
what i am describing is what i described years ago in several posts.
it was mentioned recently [and on john's blog], then discussion went
back to citation-specific syntax.
> These days, my impression is that Org developers like to have [fn:·]
> always be of a footnote type and *bold* always be of bold type.
i am not proposing hijacking existing syntax; i am proposing the
opposite. i am proposing a single, new, unambiguous syntax. e.g.
$[feature args... :key value ...]
for more than just "the feature we need today". i don't care about
the details of the outer syntax. and i misspoke when i said plist. i
meant specifiable via a lambda list.
for today's feature, that can mean e.g.
$[cite blah :blah2 blah3]
if you want to keep the mnemonic, that's fine too:
$[(Cite) blah ...]
but suppose we want, oh, say, backend-independent color in 5 years:
$[color-start "red"]red$[color-end "red"]
[i am just making this up as i go along to give you the general idea.]
notice how we did not need to invent new syntax!
>> to me, that means plist or similar.
>
> A lambda (that is a cite-subtype) is ∞ more customizable than a plist.
i don't think i'd favor anything that must eval. security issues,
among other things.
> A generalization of, say macros and link which look like [FUN: :key value]
> or [FUN: arg]{:key value} may be appropriate, but it's something
> different from the discussion at hand.
i'm not sure i am explaining my point well here.
samuel
--
The Kafka Pandemic: http://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com
The disease DOES progress. MANY people have died from it. And
ANYBODY can get it.
Denmark: free Karina Hansen NOW.
- Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal, (continued)
- Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal, Rasmus, 2015/02/18
- Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal, Richard Lawrence, 2015/02/19
- Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal, Nicolas Goaziou, 2015/02/19
- Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal, Richard Lawrence, 2015/02/20
- Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal, Samuel Wales, 2015/02/20
- Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal, Rasmus, 2015/02/20
- Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal,
Samuel Wales <=
- Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal, Rasmus, 2015/02/21
- Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal, Thomas S. Dye, 2015/02/21
- Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal, Samuel Wales, 2015/02/26
- Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal, Stefan Nobis, 2015/02/27
- Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal, Rasmus, 2015/02/27
- Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal, Richard Lawrence, 2015/02/20
- Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal, Rasmus, 2015/02/21
- Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal, Samuel Wales, 2015/02/21
- Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal, Samuel Wales, 2015/02/21
- Re: [O] Citation syntax: a revised proposal, Aaron Ecay, 2015/02/25