Re: [O] [RFC] [PATCH] [parser] org-element.el: Handle block parameters

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Hello,

Aaron Ecay <address@hidden> writes:

> 2013ko urriak 30an, Nicolas Goaziou-ek idatzi zuen:
>> IIRC, I already suggested a solution with Babel for this problem.
>> There's no need to complicate core Org syntax for such a specific
>> case.
>
> And I already said why I disagree that your proposal is a solution.
> Special blocks are “Containers targeted at export back-ends” (according
> to the manual). Is it appropriate for such containers to have metadata
> attached?  As I explain below, I think so. Whether you approve or
> disapprove of the use to which someone puts that metadata in a specific
> instance is a different question, as long as we agree that the metadata
> is potentially useful for some things.

Metadata relative to export back-ends is stuffed into #+attr_backend
keywords. There's no reason to clobber Org syntax with back-ends
metadata.

>> Actually, there are two points to consider:
>> 
>>   1. Providing something like :author implies that all back-ends in core
>>      and contrib and the manual have to be updated accordingly.
>
> Yes, that is desirable eventually.  I guess whoever implements :author
> for quotes (maybe it will be me) will need to think about all these
> things.  (Though I’m not sure that all backends have to be updated in
> one fell swoop.  The old behavior is still fine as a fall-back until all
> backends catch up to the new standard.

All backends will not magically catch-up if nobody does the job.
Creating new syntax has a cost, which is higher than simply adding a few
lines in "org-element.el".

>>   2. "parameters" is too vague to be useful. It needs to be parsed
>>      further, which means that we must define explicitly use cases and
>>      keywords. Thus, I don't think adding "parameters" to every block is
>>      a good move if we don't know beforehand how they will be used.
>> 
>>      Though, it is possible to extend the syntax to well-defined
>>      specific cases. :author may be one of them, there are certainly
>>      others.
>
> I have the opposite view.  The parser should provide a set of convenient
> tools to elisp code, which are useful for extending org’s functionality
> at the elisp level.  An “if you build it they will come” approach.

I'm trying to unify and simplify Org syntax. The simpler the better.
That doesn't mean that the syntax cannot be extended, but I'd like to
see a concrete good reason for it. "Let's do it as it might be used
later" just doesn't cut it.

Moreover, your proposal, IMO, is not well-enough defined. You merely add
a free-form string and call it "parameters". Parameters for what? Which
syntax: a plist, switches? Why cannot some parameters fit into other
affiliated keywords (e.g. HEADER)? What happens if the line is too long:
is there another location for them? What happens if they compete with
other affiliated keywords, i.e. what if I write

  #+begin_quote :caption "Something"

So, again, it is important to know what they do so we can deduce what
location is the more appropriate for them. For example, "attributes"
should be short enough to fit on a single line. Switches are good
candidates, a plist is not (see switches in example blocks, for
example), unless we limit allowed keywords in it.


Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou