Hi Christian,

thanks for the thorough explanation!

I agree with the duplicated information introduced with the additional keyword. 
The bottom-line is that org-download should (somehow) register the additional 
keyword. I'll consider filing the issue there.

For a workaround I also consider removing every +:DOWNLOADED... line in my 
buffers or accept the (repeated) warnings issued by org-lint.

Thanks,
Daniel


Am 29. Mai 2026 11:06:09 MESZ schrieb Christian Moe <[email protected]>:
>Hi, Daniel,
>
>Sorry, I've been absent for a bit.
>
>Daniel Tocoda <[email protected]> writes:
>> This is the actual item, which is annotated with keywords:
>>
>> #+DOWNLOADED: screenshot @ 2026-05-15 13:25:28
>> #+attr_org: :width 400px
>> [[attachment:2026-05-15_13-25-28_screenshot.png]]
>>
>> It would feel normal to me to have these three associated items
>> consecutively aligned. Or optionally(!), if someone prefers, have it
>> with a separating blank line.  Hence, I'd assume both should be
>> possible.
>>
>> Therefore I am still somewhat puzzled, also because this seems to be
>> like a new markdown syntax rule for me.
>>
>> For clarification I'd also like to add that the above entry was
>> auto-generated by function org-download-clipboard (from org-download
>> package).
>>
>> Would you point towards org-download, namely using outdated syntax
>> rules for the generated attachment text or can you agree with my
>> personal flavour, i.e. having these three lines associated with the
>> actual downloaded attachment, treated somehow like a proper block
>> (with no separating blank lines)?
>
>Well, it's just a warning, and one you can probably ignore, as I don't
>think there's any risk of /Org/ being confused in /this/ particular
>case. There are however cases where placing an 'independent' keyword
>before an 'affiliated' one will cause unintended behavior. (See
>https://list.orgmode.org/orgmode/87v8ticm0l.fsf@localhost/ in the thread
>that motivated this and several other additions to org-lint.)
>
>I see why it makes sense for you that the DOWNLOADED keyword added by
>org-download.el should be visually grouped with the following element
>and keywords affiliated to it, but it is not one of the keywords
>recognized as 'affiliated'.
>
>Ihor will have a better idea than me what the appropriate way for a
>third-party package to register a new affiliated keyword might be. It
>hasn't been made easy,[1] and my feeling is it's best avoided if
>possible.
>
>In this case, maybe they could have avoided it. I don't know what
>org-download.el uses the DOWNLOADED keyword for, but it looks redundant
>-- in your example, it duplicates information already found in the
>linked file name.
>
>Regards,
>Christian
>
>[1] Affiliated keywords are recognized by the regexp in
>'org-element--affiliated-re'. The docstring says not to mess with it but
>to set the underlying 'org-element-affiliated-keywords' instead.
>However, since the regexp is constructed and defined as a constant when
>org-element.el is loaded, you need to re-evaluate the defconstant for
>any change in 'org-element-affiliated-keywords' to take effect.
>

-- Von /e/OS E-Mail gesendet.

Reply via email to