Btw, the change 20d293b4a was done after a filed bug report. Maybe should be mentioned as well. The change was not something I just felt like doing just for the fun of it.
Regards G > -----Original Message----- > From: Kyle Meyer <k...@kyleam.com> > Sent: den 14 februari 2020 03:42 > To: Gustav Wikström <gus...@whil.se>; Nicolas Goaziou > <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> > Cc: Bastien Guerry <b...@gnu.org>; email@example.com > Subject: RE: attachment: link type export to HTML invalid attach dir > > Gustav Wikström <gus...@whil.se> writes: > > >> Gustav Wikström <gus...@whil.se> writes: > >> > >> > Ah, you mean the reference on line 3216. No, I don't think it can > >> > be removed. And I honestly don't think it should be either. It's > >> > there to let attachment links mirror the peculiarities of file > >> > links. It's needed for feature compatibility. I don't see the > issue with that. > >> > It's a core link type and it needs the information. That > particular > >> > logic doesn't affect the parse tree. It's there only to give > >> > attachment links the same properties as file links. > >> > >> I disagree. This is not a core link type. The issue is that the > >> parser should self-contained. Please use a different way to obtain > >> the information; we already discussed it and suggested multiple > solutions. > > > > Maybe time for Bastien to step in. Because I can't remove the > > reference to attachment in org-element.el without breaking it's > > functionality. Which, btw, was broken before adding the reference in > > org-element.el. The thing that started this discussion in the first > > place. We're in a better place now. > > It seems unfair to say you can't remove it because it would break > functionality. You committed 20d293b4a (Give link parser knowledge of > attachment link expanded path, 2020-01-18) without posting it to the > list  and giving Nicolas a chance to comment, which you've agreed > was too hasty . Misjudging the situation is of course okay, but > please don't use that as a reason to keep a change that would not have > landed if you had submitted it for discussion. > > : https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/2020- > 01/msg00155.html > : https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/2020- > 01/msg00162.html