Daniel Staal <DSt...-Jdbf3xiKgS8@public.gmane.org> writes:

> On 6/16/22 1:21 PM, John MacFarlane wrote:
>> I don't know what the best solution is. Pandoc is really
>> designed to preserve the features of documents that are encoded
>> in its types. Anything else -- including the use of
>> "stringly typed" attributes -- is a bit of a hack, and tends to
>> lead to unmaintainable messes down the road.
>>
>> We could try to establish some generic conventions for
>> representing things like vertical-alignment in the attributes,
>> e.g. with a "vertical-align" attribute that gets interpreted
>> by different writers, but as I said, once we depart from the
>> structured types things get to be a bit of a mess.
>
> A thought: One option would be to suggest some generic conventions for
> readers, but maintain that *writers* will ignore anything not in the
> official AST. This would allow people like the original poster to
> handle many issues with custom LUA filters/writers, and if any
> particular attribute becomes widespread in readers you can decide if you
> want to adopt it into the official AST and add it to writers.

That's more or less what I was thinking.