From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:403:58f0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms8.migadu.com with LMTPS id cOAoE4KF32XiLAAA62LTzQ:P1 (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 20:12:02 +0100 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:403:58f0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1.migadu.com with LMTPS id cOAoE4KF32XiLAAA62LTzQ (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 20:12:02 +0100 X-Envelope-To: larch@yhetil.org Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=excalamus.com header.s=zmail header.b=XsIFd0ef; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org"; dmarc=none; arc=pass ("zohomail.com:s=zohoarc:i=1") ARC-Message-Signature: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1709147522; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help: list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=QwY7XKst4n7n+9FskGYV1HEIvbpwsqs2EYhaIwDJG6k=; b=Nss7gBzIM8smCGb+omRHAdzOanJO3vNQmtX6I1vsszkfl0xLIUwGHQLOSd20sU+15Sa0Ta W/cXAX+VjEn5t5JGGkFK+vXP5rGyjmhsf29hE/Vh1HPuJBLoynfkDDxINkaHVxfwu2A39M hag+Bq/zP33wDEyBi2LjE3LRktdgBSzm0Hx2TE4m/v74A8muzKM1sjpT9PjbifWhdYzX1l TQju0qeSfcLO4JbfmuCJ6g5GTKFy+OdvG1GItGaGV/Kh+IoWh0AsEEJ+rfOq+H7Oh9j8wR bYOSKdvNqvm+dODM73rZJGhY1lw1J99Wrzrpmq5AscaXb7l3bnaggfseZ0TVkg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=2; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=excalamus.com header.s=zmail header.b=XsIFd0ef; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org"; dmarc=none; arc=pass ("zohomail.com:s=zohoarc:i=1") ARC-Seal: i=2; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1709147522; a=rsa-sha256; cv=pass; b=CjQiUDlkgPqGQ+EjKy/TXdj+B5bAvvlFigF1IXhn/N4dpBDQW+WIg9xZvRWF/rY857ocMk 3rHyTgM0tUuU4UIZ3PYReAmA6kjsiiYc5nKWn4uArmBCFS+hOfbEriR0l4o9HGPUbB/iUW Rwq6km72fzKhjwn2aMuRmSPSWtwurhN1CS3qSXqgdh7L/1HdCPa1BonufCSLBIZE26oleH KRrO2aa1sNwJUojvGnVNNUbTypJmhUdTH/TaRxeZAr/ki2c7aGvHWX5mDX+xz4kAA5DkVa 7j7kBNNBFVV3KQxtI0DqE7MCaHHU9J9JypiSf1LZmFVuBDw7ldq5etgdzhr37A== Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6986E6B703 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 20:12:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rfPKi-0001pK-1j; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 14:11:13 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rfPKZ-0001og-Hp for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 14:11:04 -0500 Received: from sender4-pp-f112.zoho.com ([136.143.188.112]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rfPKW-0005N2-Fe for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 14:11:03 -0500 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1709147456; cv=none; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; b=Mr+P+SRwJMs4GP4yUwmlu6d1+UnGJcqsKFWYfgLv1PVYuA5iNXUiUrCpte3qYQor29D4wvDeAKiLWIIYh2Y18eyHGnbRH+Kad66rPGL7qkU7shFXWD0sF1/q9D65iG6heAestMeaS8oVzy2CXWewkJVK7REoKgQT2S5UlJlQ29g= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; t=1709147456; h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Cc:Date:Date:From:From:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Message-ID:References:Subject:Subject:To:To:Message-Id:Reply-To; bh=QwY7XKst4n7n+9FskGYV1HEIvbpwsqs2EYhaIwDJG6k=; b=VgA0oE4mn/shTWLSNjt4ulWrchY1fmThgtMAM04IS8jUXeOPKF4K797wa01L63NQzfaxefz9OPSLIdv4ae0qQXDHmg+CaoIcPYcHesirdJqzB/Os0py+HJEYcTJhg/fDTt2lrsw51swWrjkIlev/SGeNWCvUQUCNN+Qpm+29xnQ= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.zohomail.com; dkim=pass header.i=excalamus.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=matt@excalamus.com; dmarc=pass header.from= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1709147456; s=zmail; d=excalamus.com; i=matt@excalamus.com; h=Date:Date:From:From:To:To:Cc:Cc:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:Subject:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:Reply-To; bh=QwY7XKst4n7n+9FskGYV1HEIvbpwsqs2EYhaIwDJG6k=; b=XsIFd0efFM4K50p/18sMQvDeSUaYxV4MQZuRdvohW40oL8173fuiF3L39z6mcjnK hCAit0lCFiO+pL6SyEjeM96wvHgnTGdKp2f1/zwEswitHjQ4zlxHnFfgKPppoM2pAmL V62Xru5Ud4VzlaLYvODtrzhojrGwXnLohWx+DeCE= Received: from mail.zoho.com by mx.zohomail.com with SMTP id 1709147454099426.10501092632524; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 11:10:54 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 20:10:54 +0100 From: Matt To: "Ihor Radchenko" Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?=22S=C5=82awomir_Grochowski=22?= , "emacs-orgmode" Message-ID: <18df1207a7b.115a993991531101.8492317175658336513@excalamus.com> In-Reply-To: <87le743hli.fsf@localhost> References: <87ttn1f3b5.fsf@localhost> <87plwjmwhj.fsf@localhost> <18deb76f2d9.cad957fe1073948.9203602429479305690@excalamus.com> <87le743hli.fsf@localhost> Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc/org-manual.org (Checkboxes): move section 'Checkboxes' from 'TODO Items' to 'Plain Lists' MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Importance: Medium User-Agent: Zoho Mail X-Mailer: Zoho Mail Received-SPF: pass client-ip=136.143.188.112; envelope-from=matt@excalamus.com; helo=sender4-pp-f112.zoho.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org X-Migadu-Country: US X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -10.05 X-Spam-Score: -10.05 X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 6986E6B703 X-Migadu-Scanner: mx11.migadu.com X-TUID: 42Fd5lKhlKQE ---- On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 13:17:54 +0100 Ihor Radchenko wrote ---=20 > Matt matt@excalamus.com> writes: >=20 > > I had responded in favor here: https://list.orgmode.org/18d4cf138a6.10= fb9c6702382826.5023996590743168415@excalamus.com/ >=20 > Did I miss something... Yes, it appears there's a little bit of a mix up because of a bad subject l= ine. There's also some nitpicky logic. The tl;dr is, we shouldn't use the= current patch. >...or did you not provided arguments /why/ the > section should be moved? I need to understand what kind of improvement > it would provide to the manual. I didn't know that's what you were looking for. When I said, "I had respon= ded in favor..." it was in response to your prior message which said, > No comments arrived within one month.=20 This is incorrect albeit understandable. I had responded and, therefore, t= here were not "no comments." However, it looks like I responded in the wro= ng thread! ("Re: [PATCH] doc/org-manual.org: Checkboxes, add checkbox state= s examples") That's my bad!=20 Regarding reasoning, I'm in favor of the move for the reasons S=C5=82awomir= gave: > Because checkbox can only exist in a plain list, as a plain list feature. > So the section should be under 'Plain Lists' heading not under 'TODO Item= s'. The issue is checkbox usage is split between different sections of the manu= al. You had responded to this by saying, > Both arrangements are logical. Checkboxes are useful as a complement to > TODO items. And they are also indeed a plain list feature. It seems we're all agreed the proposed arrangement is logical and that the = issue is valid. I don't think it needs extra justification. Conceding this point, which we all appear to, the issue becomes which arran= gement we should use? Originally, we were reluctant to move the Checkboxes section only because C= arston had moved it previously. Unfortunately, we don't know *why* Carston= moved it. This isn't a very contestable justification. My latest reply gives a specific reason to *not* apply the current patch. = That is, to *not* move the Checkbox section as-is. The reason is: > > The Checkboxes section is written assuming the reader knows what Prope= rties are. The GNU documentation guidelines suggest writing as though read= ers have read from the beginning [fn:1] [fn:2]. That is, unless introducin= g a concept, only use concepts that have already been explained. Propertie= s are introduced in Section 2.7 and Checkboxes is currently 5.6. The prop= osal is to move Checkboxes to 2.6.1 *before* properties are introduced. Th= is is a problem. I suspect this is the reason Carston moved the section. Regardless, it's a= valid reason to have moved it and gives us clear criteria for why we can't= apply the patch. It also gives us a precise target for what would need to= be fixed in order to resolve the issue of checkbox usage being split betwe= en sections by moving the Checkbox section. > We start talking about properties as early as in 2.2.2 Initial > visibility and in many other places. Re-ordering the manual to avoid > referring to future concepts would entail a major rewrite. I believe that arranging documentation in conceptual order is always a wort= hwhile goal. It's obviously better to have concepts introduced in order. = It's also completely reasonable to not want to do that work right now. I'= m not willing to at the moment and it sounds like you aren't either. That'= s okay. If S=C5=82awomir or someone else wants to, I still think the origi= nal point is valid. However, the proposed patch, moving the section as-is,= won't work because it (re)introduces problems with conceptual ordering. If someone wants to suggest a patch which resolves the issue of checkbox us= age being split between sections which preserves, or improves, the conceptu= al order, I'd be happy to assist. -- Matt Trzcinski Emacs Org contributor (ob-shell) Learn more about Org mode at https://orgmode.org Support Org development at=C2=A0https://liberapay.com/org-mode