Ihor Radchenko writes: > Maybe we should introduce an equivalent of special blocks, but for > inline use? Or should we modify _both_ inline export snippets and export > blocks to allow fallback mechanism?
I find the idea of inline special blocks very interesting, but I think there are a couple of drawbacks: since special blocks support ATTR_X, how would that be implemented in the inline version? The most obvious thing I can think of is to mimic inline code blocks: my_special_block[attributes list]{content} But it would produce a result many times too verbose. Another risk that this would entail, IMHO, is that of the "LaTeXification" of Org... In any case, for things like that, aren't links and macros enough? I'm one of those who 'abuse' links for many export scenarios (I even have written this package: https://gitlab.com/maciaschain/org-critical-edition), and I think links have enormous potential and versatility. John Kitchin's blog has really helped me open my mind and explore that very productive Org component. Macros are also a very powerful tool, except for the comma issue, which I think is still an unfinished business and a solution should be found one day. Still, the possibility of a special inline block is very interesting to me. Best regards, Juan Manuel