[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Emacs-orgmode] another org-export request regarding links
From: |
Austin Frank |
Subject: |
Re: [Emacs-orgmode] another org-export request regarding links |
Date: |
Sun, 21 May 2006 11:02:24 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Macintosh/20060308) |
Carsten Dominik wrote:
> Are jou suggesting that *all* links should be exported as reference
> style, or only some? Which ones?
There are a few different ways I can see it working.
First, and probably simplest, would be to set a flag in #+OPTIONS: that
applied to all of the links in the file on ascii export.
Another idea would be to introduce a new function with an embellished
linking markup for adding an ID and title to links-- something like
[[http://www.example.com][description][optional id][optional title]]
In this case, any link created with org-insert-reference-link (or
whatever the new function was called) would be exported in reference
style during org-export-as-ascii. To clarify:
I use [[http://www.yahoo.com][Yahoo search][][]].
I use [[http://www.google.com][Google search][1][]].
I use [[http://www.ask.com][Ask search][2][formerly Ask Jeeves]].
I use [[http://www.altavista.com][Alta Vista search][][not really]].
might be exported as
I use [Yahoo search].
I use [Google search] [1].
I use [Ask search] [2].
I use [Alta Vista search].
[Yahoo search]: http://www.yahoo.com
[1]: http://www.google.com
[2]: http://www.ask.com "formerly Ask Jeeves"
[Alta Vista search]: http://www.altavista.com "not really"
I could also imagine that reference-style links might be exported
differently in org-export-as-html as well-- they would still be
functioning hyperlinks at the point where they were inserted, but they
could automatically be gathered into a list of links at the bottom of
the html file, as is common in many tech articles.
> This is going on my list of things to remember, but I don't know yet
> if/when I will get to this.
Like I said, this one is in the "would be nice to have" category for me,
too. I'm definitely not missing it in my day-to-day use of org.
Thanks,
/au