Re: [O] Some projects

[Samuel Wales]

i like some of these ideas, particularly lexical.

org already has a lot of syntax.  i am leery of introducing yet more
heterogenous syntax to org.  key word heterogenous.  i don't mind more
features if it is always using the same syntax framework and thus can
take advantage of everything else that uses it.  key word framework.

thus, i'd propose a single syntax framework that takes care of future
syntax.  a syntax framework like $[annotation ...] where ... is
specifiable as a lisp lambda list or similar could also be used for
other features, including long-form emphasis.

i don't think long-form emphasis is a bad idea at all.  it allows
export back end independence.  i only think it is bad if it means
introducing heterogenous, non-framework syntax.

a single framework takes care of future features too.  and as a bonus
it allows future subfeatures.  for example, there is no need to
implement authorship in annotations until we decide we want them
later.  when we do, just add a keyword option: $[annotation :author
"joe"].

and yet another bonus is that it could be used for user-defined
features.  all without adding heterogenous non-framework syntax.

===

i would need fontification to be able to fontify inline footnotes that
have more than one paragraph [i.e. have blank lines in them, which is
currently not allowed in 8.x org export.  fontification currently and
always has fontified them correctly from my perspective i.e. by
allowing multiple paragraphs].