emacs-orgmode@gnu.org archives
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed

* should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?
@ 2010-12-17  8:52 Torsten Wagner
  2010-12-17 12:15 ` Andrew J. Korty
                   ` (4 more replies)
  0 siblings, 5 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Torsten Wagner @ 2010-12-17  8:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Org-mode ml

Dear all,
since I subscribed to the maillist, the traffic increased enormously. 
This is very nice, however, recently I got difficulties to filter throw 
all the post searching for relevant topics for me. The babel project is 
using already a [babel] tag, and other tags floating around 
([PATCH],[OT],[Bug]). Thinking of tags, I wonder why we use [Orgmode] 
since all mails coming from emacs-orgmode(a)gnu.org which is a strong 
indicator already.

In general I guess a good mail client is capable to sort mails based on 
this tags or mail address. I just wonder whether there is an official 
list of tags on a prominent place like worg, or if especially the devs 
would like a separate emacs-orgmode-dev maillist.
If you believe a "How to post on the orgmode mailing list"-article in 
worg helps I would be willing to start with one.

Best regards

Torsten

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread

• * Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?
    2010-12-17  8:52 should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ? Torsten Wagner
  @ 2010-12-17 12:15 ` Andrew J. Korty
    2010-12-17 14:00   ` Giovanni Ridolfi
    2010-12-17 15:56   ` Nick Dokos
    2010-12-17 15:40 ` Nick Dokos
                     ` (3 subsequent siblings)
    4 siblings, 2 replies; 30+ messages in thread
  From: Andrew J. Korty @ 2010-12-17 12:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
    To: Org-mode ml
  
  Torsten Wagner <torsten.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
  
  > Thinking of tags, I wonder why we use [Orgmode] since all mails 
  > coming from emacs-orgmode(a)gnu.org which is a strong indicator 
  > already.
  
  Not sure I agree with splitting the list, but the [Orgmode] tag is
  definitely superfluous.  Who has a mail client that can't filter on
  the List-Id field?
  
  ajk
  
  ^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread

• • * Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?
      2010-12-17 12:15 ` Andrew J. Korty
    @ 2010-12-17 14:00   ` Giovanni Ridolfi
      2010-12-17 15:56   ` Nick Dokos
      1 sibling, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
    From: Giovanni Ridolfi @ 2010-12-17 14:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
      To: Andrew J. Korty; +Cc: Org-mode ml
    
    "Andrew J. Korty" <ajk@iu.edu> writes:
    
    tags seems to be:
    
    - [babel] [1] or [Babel] 
    - [PATCH] 
    - [PATCH n/m]
    - [Accepted]  : means "patch accepted".
    -  Bug:
    - MobileOrg
    
    acronym tags[2]:
    [OT]
    [RFC] 
    and so on 
    
    [1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/2009-11/msg00212.html
    [2] http://www.gaarde.org/acronyms/
    
    > Torsten Wagner <torsten.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >> Thinking of tags, I wonder why we use [Orgmode] since all mails
    >> coming from emacs-orgmode(a)gnu.org which is a strong indicator
    >> already.
    >
    > Not sure I agree with splitting the list, but the [Orgmode] tag is
    > definitely superfluous.  Who has a mail client that can't filter on
    > the List-Id field?
    
    Come on! This is a standard for GNU project mailing lists:
    
    [gnugo-devel] Gnugo and CGoban [3]
    
    [coreutils] new snapshot available: coreutils-8.7.66-561f8 [4]
    
    I think it will never change.
    
    cheers,
    Giovanni
    
    [3] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnugo-devel/2010-12/index.html
    [4] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/coreutils/2010-12/index.html
    
    ^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread

  • * Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?
      2010-12-17 12:15 ` Andrew J. Korty
      2010-12-17 14:00   ` Giovanni Ridolfi
    @ 2010-12-17 15:56   ` Nick Dokos
      2010-12-17 17:28     ` Samuel Wales
      1 sibling, 1 reply; 30+ messages in thread
    From: Nick Dokos @ 2010-12-17 15:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
      To: Andrew J. Korty; +Cc: nicholas.dokos, Org-mode ml
    
    Andrew J. Korty <ajk@iu.edu> wrote:
    
    > Not sure I agree with splitting the list, but the [Orgmode] tag is
    > definitely superfluous.  Who has a mail client that can't filter on
    > the List-Id field?
    > 
    
    It may be superfluous for some (all?) mail clients, but it is not
    supefluous for *me*. Some duplication/supefluity is a *necessary* part
    of effective human communication. Of course, you can argue that *this*
    supefluity is *really* supefluous, but I'd disagree :-)
    
    Nick
    
    ^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread

  • • * Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?
        2010-12-17 15:56   ` Nick Dokos
      @ 2010-12-17 17:28     ` Samuel Wales
        0 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
      From: Samuel Wales @ 2010-12-17 17:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
        To: nicholas.dokos; +Cc: Andrew J. Korty, Org-mode ml
      
      I have to use very large fonts, and tags present a huge problem for
      that.  I do, however, agree with the concept.
      
      I would just like to propose that the tags be kept to just a few
      letters.  This allows reading more of the subject line.
      
      Another point is that if important words are in the /beginning/ of the
      subject line, that increases the chance that I and others who do not
      have access to the entire subject line will read your message.
      
      Also, while this might not work for everybody's client, I do know that
      in gmail, it is very easy to /add/ a tag to a list according to a
      pattern.  Thus, [Orgmode] is not necessary in gmail; you just filter
      on the headers and add a label "O".K (like "O").  And O is much easier
      to deal with because it leaves more space for the rest of the subject.
      
      [Orgmode] [babel] makes the subject line impossible to read in most
      cases with large fonts.
      
      Hope it helps.
      
      S
      
      ^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread

• * Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?
    2010-12-17  8:52 should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ? Torsten Wagner
    2010-12-17 12:15 ` Andrew J. Korty
  @ 2010-12-17 15:40 ` Nick Dokos
    2010-12-17 18:21 ` William Gardella
                     ` (2 subsequent siblings)
    4 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
  From: Nick Dokos @ 2010-12-17 15:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
    To: Torsten Wagner; +Cc: nicholas.dokos, emacs-orgmode
  
  Torsten Wagner <torsten.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
  
  > Thinking of tags, I wonder why we use
  > [Orgmode] since all mails coming from emacs-orgmode(a)gnu.org which is
  > a strong indicator already.
  
  At least for me, the subject appears in my mail-reading pane so I can
  see the tag, but the sender that appears is the original sender
  (e.g. Torsten Wagner), not emacs-orgmode.  I'd have to look *in* the
  mail to find the latter.
  
  Nick
  
  ^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread

• * Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?
    2010-12-17  8:52 should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ? Torsten Wagner
    2010-12-17 12:15 ` Andrew J. Korty
    2010-12-17 15:40 ` Nick Dokos
  @ 2010-12-17 18:21 ` William Gardella
    2010-12-17 20:33 ` William Gardella
    2010-12-18 12:09 ` Torsten Wagner
    4 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
  From: William Gardella @ 2010-12-17 18:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
    To: emacs-orgmode
  
  Torsten Wagner <torsten.wagner@gmail.com> writes:
  
  > Dear all,
  > since I subscribed to the maillist, the traffic increased
  > enormously. This is very nice, however, recently I got difficulties to
  > filter throw all the post searching for relevant topics for me. The
  > babel project is using already a [babel] tag, and other tags floating
  > around ([PATCH],[OT],[Bug]). Thinking of tags, I wonder why we use
  > [Orgmode] since all mails coming from emacs-orgmode(a)gnu.org which is
  > a strong indicator already.
  >
  > In general I guess a good mail client is capable to sort mails based
  > on this tags or mail address. I just wonder whether there is an
  > official list of tags on a prominent place like worg, or if especially
  > the devs would like a separate emacs-orgmode-dev maillist.
  > If you believe a "How to post on the orgmode mailing list"-article in
  > worg helps I would be willing to start with one.
  >
  > Best regards
  >
  > Torsten
  >
  
  I cut down on the "information overload" in my inbox by not viewing this
  list as mail at all.  Instead, I subscribe to it as an NNTP newsgroup,
  gmane.emacs.orgmode at nntp://news.gmane.org/, which I view in Gnus.
  This keeps the incredibly active conversation and development of
  org-mode (which is a very good thing!) in a separate corner of my
  computing life from my email.  From there it's easier to narrow down
  what's relevant to org-mode topics I have an interest in, and I can also
  leave newsgroup to its own devices when I don't have time to look at
  this list.
  
  -- 
  William Gardella
  J.D. Candidate
  Class of 2011, University of Pittsburgh School of Law
  
  ^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread

• * Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?
    2010-12-17  8:52 should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ? Torsten Wagner
                     ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
    2010-12-17 18:21 ` William Gardella
  @ 2010-12-17 20:33 ` William Gardella
    2010-12-17 21:16   ` Eric S Fraga
    2010-12-18 12:09 ` Torsten Wagner
    4 siblings, 1 reply; 30+ messages in thread
  From: William Gardella @ 2010-12-17 20:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
    To: emacs-orgmode
  
  Torsten Wagner <torsten.wagner@gmail.com> writes:
  
  > Dear all,
  > since I subscribed to the maillist, the traffic increased
  > enormously. This is very nice, however, recently I got difficulties to
  > filter throw all the post searching for relevant topics for me. The
  > babel project is using already a [babel] tag, and other tags floating
  > around ([PATCH],[OT],[Bug]). Thinking of tags, I wonder why we use
  > [Orgmode] since all mails coming from emacs-orgmode(a)gnu.org which is
  > a strong indicator already.
  >
  > In general I guess a good mail client is capable to sort mails based
  > on this tags or mail address. I just wonder whether there is an
  > official list of tags on a prominent place like worg, or if especially
  > the devs would like a separate emacs-orgmode-dev maillist.
  > If you believe a "How to post on the orgmode mailing list"-article in
  > worg helps I would be willing to start with one.
  >
  > Best regards
  >
  > Torsten
  >
  >
  >
  
  For this "info overload" reason, I find it easier to follow this list as
  a GMANE newsgroup ( nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.orgmode/ ) rather
  than as a mailing list.  Makes it easier to tune it out when I'm
  awaiting urgent things in my email.
  
  And if you're a Gnus user (Gnuser?) it's more or less the same
  difference, interface- and ease-wise :)
  
  Best,
  -- 
  William Gardella
  J.D. Candidate
  Class of 2011, University of Pittsburgh School of Law
  
  ^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread

• • * Re: Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?
      2010-12-17 20:33 ` William Gardella
    @ 2010-12-17 21:16   ` Eric S Fraga
      0 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
    From: Eric S Fraga @ 2010-12-17 21:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
      To: William Gardella; +Cc: emacs-orgmode
    
    William Gardella <gardellawg@gmail.com> writes:
    
    
    [...]
    
    > For this "info overload" reason, I find it easier to follow this list as
    > a GMANE newsgroup ( nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.orgmode/ ) rather
    > than as a mailing list.  Makes it easier to tune it out when I'm
    > awaiting urgent things in my email.
    >
    > And if you're a Gnus user (Gnuser?) it's more or less the same
    > difference, interface- and ease-wise :)
    
    Mind you, if you're a Gnus user, mail splitting makes it trivial to have
    org-mode messages sent off to a different mail group... and, in fact,
    just as trivial to split off all the [babel] messages!
    
    In this vein, I could suggest that some extra tags might be used:
    
    
    - agenda :: agenda views
    - export :: export related (or even [latex], [html], ...)
    - gtd    :: getting things done
    
    suitably shortened maybe?  I'm not bothered in any case as all my org
    emails go into their own group and sit there until I am on the train...
    or until weekends when I might have some time to catch up (like
    tonight).
    -- 
    : Eric S Fraga (GnuPG: 0xC89193D8FFFCF67D) in Emacs 23.2.1
    : using Org-mode version 7.4 (release_7.4.25.geb0d)
    
    ^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread

• * Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?
    2010-12-17  8:52 should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ? Torsten Wagner
                     ` (3 preceding siblings ...)
    2010-12-17 20:33 ` William Gardella
  @ 2010-12-18 12:09 ` Torsten Wagner
    2011-01-04 15:19   ` Bastien
    4 siblings, 1 reply; 30+ messages in thread
  From: Torsten Wagner @ 2010-12-18 12:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
    To: Org-mode ml
  
  
  [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 676 bytes --]
  
  Thanks for all the answers and discussions.
  To summarise:
  I guess nobody is interest to split the list. At least no dev mentioned a
  need.
  Tags are good but might need some guidance to use a certain set and possibly
  shorten them wherever possible.
  The issue with to long tag list is not only a problem for people with large
  fonts. Many of us start to read mails on our smartphones where space is
  limited as well.
  Using [Orgmode] as a tag on the orgmode list is an arguable point. Maybe the
  someone higher in the queue like to make a decision to shorten it to [Org].
  I would like to start to write something in worg and then we might see how
  useful it is.
  
  Best regards
  Torsten
  
  [-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 716 bytes --]
  
  [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 201 bytes --]
  
  _______________________________________________
  Emacs-orgmode mailing list
  Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
  Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
  http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
  
  ^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread

• • * Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?
      2010-12-18 12:09 ` Torsten Wagner
    @ 2011-01-04 15:19   ` Bastien
      2011-01-04 17:39     ` Štěpán Němec
      0 siblings, 1 reply; 30+ messages in thread
    From: Bastien @ 2011-01-04 15:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
      To: Torsten Wagner; +Cc: Org-mode ml
    
    Hi Torsten,
    
    Torsten Wagner <torsten.wagner@gmail.com> writes:
    
    > Using [Orgmode] as a tag on the orgmode list is an arguable point.
    > Maybe the someone higher in the queue like to make a decision to
    > shorten it to [Org].
    
    I agreed this would be an improvement to use [Org].
    
    If nobody have a strong objection, I'll make this change in two days.
    
    Thanks for bringing this up,
    
    -- 
     Bastien
    
    ^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread

  • • * Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?
        2011-01-04 15:19   ` Bastien
      @ 2011-01-04 17:39     ` Štěpán Němec
        2011-01-04 18:12       ` Bastien
        2011-01-04 18:52       ` Nick Dokos
        0 siblings, 2 replies; 30+ messages in thread
      From: Štěpán Němec @ 2011-01-04 17:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
        To: Bastien; +Cc: Org-mode ml
      
      Bastien <bastien.guerry@wikimedia.fr> writes:
      
      > Hi Torsten,
      >
      > Torsten Wagner <torsten.wagner@gmail.com> writes:
      >
      >> Using [Orgmode] as a tag on the orgmode list is an arguable point.
      >> Maybe the someone higher in the queue like to make a decision to
      >> shorten it to [Org].
      >
      > I agreed this would be an improvement to use [Org].
      >
      > If nobody have a strong objection, I'll make this change in two days.
      
      FWIW, I do. Having [Org] (or anything, really) prepended to the subjects
      of _all_ mails coming from a list that is already uniquely identifiable
      (e.g. by its address) has no information value altogether (unlike
      [Babel], [PATCH] etc.) and only takes up the much precious Subject:
      header space.
      
      I have never understood why anyone would like anything like that.
      
      If you want to somehow treat the mails from this list specially, why
      don't you filter on the presence of the mailing list address in the
      headers, for example?
      
        Štěpán
      
      ^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread

    • • * Re: Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?
          2011-01-04 17:39     ` Štěpán Němec
        @ 2011-01-04 18:12       ` Bastien
          2011-01-04 18:31         ` Jeff Horn
          2011-01-04 19:49         ` Štěpán Němec
          2011-01-04 18:52       ` Nick Dokos
          1 sibling, 2 replies; 30+ messages in thread
        From: Bastien @ 2011-01-04 18:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
          To: Štěpán Němec; +Cc: Org-mode ml
        
        Hi Štěpán,
        
        Štěpán Němec <stepnem@gmail.com> writes:
        
        > FWIW, I do. Having [Org] (or anything, really) prepended to the subjects
        > of _all_ mails coming from a list that is already uniquely identifiable
        > (e.g. by its address) has no information value altogether (unlike
        > [Babel], [PATCH] etc.) and only takes up the much precious Subject:
        > header space.
        
        Not that reducing the label from [Orgmode] to [Org] already seem to be a
        progress in the right direction :)
        
        Would you object having [Org] instead of [Orgmode]?
        
        > I have never understood why anyone would like anything like that.
        
        As Giovanni recalled, this is a standard GNU practice and I won't break
        it.  Maybe this is a leftover from the time when most used email clients
        had no clever filters -- but maybe it's still useful for web archiving 
        or other purposes I cannot think of right now.
        
        Cheers,
        
        -- 
         Bastien
        
        ^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread

      • • * Re: Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?
            2011-01-04 18:12       ` Bastien
          @ 2011-01-04 18:31         ` Jeff Horn
            2011-01-04 19:49         ` Štěpán Němec
            1 sibling, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
          From: Jeff Horn @ 2011-01-04 18:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
            To: Bastien; +Cc: Org-mode ml, Štěpán Němec
          
          On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Bastien <bastien.guerry@wikimedia.fr> wrote:
          > Hi Štěpán,
          >
          > Štěpán Němec <stepnem@gmail.com> writes:
          >
          >> FWIW, I do. Having [Org] (or anything, really) prepended to the subjects
          >> of _all_ mails coming from a list that is already uniquely identifiable
          >> (e.g. by its address) has no information value altogether (unlike
          >> [Babel], [PATCH] etc.) and only takes up the much precious Subject:
          >> header space.
          >
          > Not that reducing the label from [Orgmode] to [Org] already seem to be a
          > progress in the right direction :)
          >
          > Would you object having [Org] instead of [Orgmode]?
          >
          >> I have never understood why anyone would like anything like that.
          >
          > As Giovanni recalled, this is a standard GNU practice and I won't break
          > it.  Maybe this is a leftover from the time when most used email clients
          > had no clever filters -- but maybe it's still useful for web archiving
          > or other purposes I cannot think of right now.
          >
          
          Is the capital-O gnu practice as well? I have no objection to changing
          the tag, since gmail filters my mail for me, but a lower-case-o seems
          more consistent with other org nomenclature.
          
          -- 
          Jeffrey Horn
          http://www.failuretorefrain.com/jeff/
          
          ^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread

        • * Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?
            2011-01-04 18:12       ` Bastien
            2011-01-04 18:31         ` Jeff Horn
          @ 2011-01-04 19:49         ` Štěpán Němec
            2011-01-04 20:43           ` Nick Dokos
            1 sibling, 1 reply; 30+ messages in thread
          From: Štěpán Němec @ 2011-01-04 19:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
            To: Bastien; +Cc: Org-mode ml
          
          Bastien <bastien.guerry@wikimedia.fr> writes:
          
          > Hi Štěpán,
          >
          > Štěpán Němec <stepnem@gmail.com> writes:
          >
          >> FWIW, I do. Having [Org] (or anything, really) prepended to the subjects
          >> of _all_ mails coming from a list that is already uniquely identifiable
          >> (e.g. by its address) has no information value altogether (unlike
          >> [Babel], [PATCH] etc.) and only takes up the much precious Subject:
          >> header space.
          >
          > Not that reducing the label from [Orgmode] to [Org] already seem to be a
          > progress in the right direction :)
          >
          > Would you object having [Org] instead of [Orgmode]?
          
          Well, I wrote "anything", so, yeah ;-) But I actually usually read the
          list through Gmane, so I'm mostly unaffected (and Gnus can also strip
          the list identifier automatically). I still find any kind of such
          server-side mangling Evil (see also Robert Pluim's reply, most of which
          I could just sign myself), but from Nick Dokos' reply I see that for
          people putting all incoming mail into one single place and not able or
          willing to do anything more than that it can have its uses, so, each to
          their own I guess...
          
          Thank you for consideration,
          
            Štěpán
          
          ^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread

        • • * Re: Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?
              2011-01-04 19:49         ` Štěpán Němec
            @ 2011-01-04 20:43           ` Nick Dokos
              0 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
            From: Nick Dokos @ 2011-01-04 20:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
              To: =?utf-8?B?xaB0xJtww6FuIE7Em21lYw==?=; +Cc: nicholas.dokos, Org-mode ml, Bastien
            
            Štěpán Němec <stepnem@gmail.com> wrote:
            
            > ... I still find any kind of such
            > server-side mangling Evil (see also Robert Pluim's reply, most of which
            > I could just sign myself), but from Nick Dokos' reply I see that for
            > people putting all incoming mail into one single place and not able or
            > willing to do anything more than that it can have its uses, so, each to
            > their own I guess...
            > 
            
            I think you misunderstand my workflow but I don't have time to explain:
            suffice it to say that my mail handling is very similar to my task
            handling in org-mode.  The two places I look at every morning (and a few
            times during the day) are my agenda and my inbox. It is important that
            they both stay lean.
            
            Nick
            
            ^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread

      • * Re: Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?
          2011-01-04 17:39     ` Štěpán Němec
          2011-01-04 18:12       ` Bastien
        @ 2011-01-04 18:52       ` Nick Dokos
          2011-01-04 19:25         ` Robert Pluim
          1 sibling, 1 reply; 30+ messages in thread
        From: Nick Dokos @ 2011-01-04 18:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
          To: =?utf-8?B?xaB0xJtww6FuIE7Em21lYw==?=; +Cc: nicholas.dokos, Org-mode ml, Bastien
        
        Štěpán Němec <stepnem@gmail.com> wrote:
        
        > FWIW, I do. Having [Org] (or anything, really) prepended to the subjects
        > of _all_ mails coming from a list that is already uniquely identifiable
        > (e.g. by its address) has no information value altogether (unlike
        > [Babel], [PATCH] etc.) and only takes up the much precious Subject:
        > header space.
        > 
        > I have never understood why anyone would like anything like that.
        >
        
        Because I can scan my inbox at a glance and triage quickly. Here's what
        I see (with mh-e in emacs as my reader):
        
         ...
         221+ 01/04 Štěpán Němec   [Orgmode] Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?<<Bastien <bastien.guerry@wikimedia.fr> writes: > Hi Torste
         ...
        
        If I am in org-mode mode (so to speak), I'll look at it. If not, I will
        skip it for now and get back to it later.
        
        Having the mailing list markers is indispensable to me. I belong to
        quite a few MLs and the ones that don't have a marker are a PITA.
        Shortening the marker is fine: eliminating it is not.
        
        > If you want to somehow treat the mails from this list specially, why
        > don't you filter on the presence of the mailing list address in the
        > headers, for example?
        > 
        
        Because all of that needs additional setup, both at the front end to do
        the filtering and at the back end to make sure that I don't miss anything.
        And that needs debugging and continued maintenance (and missed emails when
        something goes wrong, which inevitably it will). I'd rather have the list
        software take care of it.
        
        Nick
        
        ^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread

      • • * Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?
            2011-01-04 18:52       ` Nick Dokos
          @ 2011-01-04 19:25         ` Robert Pluim
                 [not found]           ` <rpluim@gmail.com>
            2011-01-05  9:13           ` should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ? Achim Gratz
            0 siblings, 2 replies; 30+ messages in thread
          From: Robert Pluim @ 2011-01-04 19:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
            To: emacs-orgmode
          
          Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com> writes:
          
          > Štěpán Němec <stepnem@gmail.com> wrote:
          >
          >> FWIW, I do. Having [Org] (or anything, really) prepended to the subjects
          >> of _all_ mails coming from a list that is already uniquely identifiable
          >> (e.g. by its address) has no information value altogether (unlike
          >> [Babel], [PATCH] etc.) and only takes up the much precious Subject:
          >> header space.
          >> 
          >> I have never understood why anyone would like anything like that.
          >>
          >
          > Because I can scan my inbox at a glance and triage quickly. Here's what
          > I see (with mh-e in emacs as my reader):
          >
          
          (disclaimer: I've been seeing this argument for the best part of 20
          years, I doubt I'm bringing anything new to the table, but I feel
          strongly about it)
          
          Triage is for *computers* to do, they're much better at it than humans.
          
          Also, those markers in the subject are obnoxious and *really* annoying,
          and take up valuable screen space.  Please don't clutter up the org-mode
          emails for zero benefit.
          
          >  ...
          >  221+ 01/04 Štěpán Němec [Orgmode] Re: should the mail list be
          > splitted resp. sub-tagged ?<<Bastien <bastien.guerry@wikimedia.fr>
          > writes: > Hi Torste
          >  ...
          >
          > If I am in org-mode mode (so to speak), I'll look at it. If not, I will
          > skip it for now and get back to it later.
          >
          > Having the mailing list markers is indispensable to me. I belong to
          > quite a few MLs and the ones that don't have a marker are a PITA.
          > Shortening the marker is fine: eliminating it is not.
          >
          >> If you want to somehow treat the mails from this list specially, why
          >> don't you filter on the presence of the mailing list address in the
          >> headers, for example?
          >> 
          >
          > Because all of that needs additional setup, both at the front end to do
          > the filtering and at the back end to make sure that I don't miss anything.
          > And that needs debugging and continued maintenance (and missed emails when
          > something goes wrong, which inevitably it will). I'd rather have the list
          > software take care of it.
          
          org-mode list email has a List-Id header, the list software has already
          taken care of it for you.  I fail to see how much can go wrong with
          filtering on that, configure it once and you're done. (or read the list
          via gmane, all nicely split out for you).
          
          Robert
          
          ^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread

        • • [parent not found: <rpluim@gmail.com>]

          • • * Re: Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?
                     [not found]           ` <rpluim@gmail.com>
              @ 2011-01-04 20:02             ` Nick Dokos
                2011-01-05  8:15               ` Robert Pluim
                2011-05-05 14:05             ` Applying style to a paragraph for HTML export Nick Dokos
                1 sibling, 1 reply; 30+ messages in thread
              From: Nick Dokos @ 2011-01-04 20:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
                To: emacs-orgmode; +Cc: nicholas.dokos
              
              [Forgot to reply-all - sorry about that. Apologies to Robert for
               the duplicate email.]
              
              Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com> wrote:
              
              > Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com> writes:
              > 
              > > Štěpán Němec <stepnem@gmail.com> wrote:
              > >
              > >> FWIW, I do. Having [Org] (or anything, really) prepended to the subjects
              > >> of _all_ mails coming from a list that is already uniquely identifiable
              > >> (e.g. by its address) has no information value altogether (unlike
              > >> [Babel], [PATCH] etc.) and only takes up the much precious Subject:
              > >> header space.
              > >> 
              > >> I have never understood why anyone would like anything like that.
              > >>
              > >
              > > Because I can scan my inbox at a glance and triage quickly. Here's what
              > > I see (with mh-e in emacs as my reader):
              > >
              > 
              > (disclaimer: I've been seeing this argument for the best part of 20
              > years, I doubt I'm bringing anything new to the table, but I feel
              > strongly about it)
              > 
              > Triage is for *computers* to do, they're much better at it than humans.
              > 
              
              You are kidding, right? How does the computer know what *I* need to do?
              
              > Also, those markers in the subject are obnoxious and *really* annoying,
              > and take up valuable screen space.  Please don't clutter up the org-mode
              > emails for zero benefit.
              > 
              
              It is *not* zero benefit to me.
              
              Nick
              
              ^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread

            • • * Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?
                  2011-01-04 20:02             ` Nick Dokos
                @ 2011-01-05  8:15               ` Robert Pluim
                  0 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
                From: Robert Pluim @ 2011-01-05  8:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
                  To: emacs-orgmode
                
                Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com> writes:
                
                > [Forgot to reply-all - sorry about that. Apologies to Robert for
                >  the duplicate email.]
                >
                
                This is why I have Mail-Copies-To: never in my headers :) No biggie.
                
                > Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com> wrote:
                >
                >> Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com> writes:
                >> 
                >> > Štěpán Němec <stepnem@gmail.com> wrote:
                >> >
                >> >> FWIW, I do. Having [Org] (or anything, really) prepended to the subjects
                >> >> of _all_ mails coming from a list that is already uniquely identifiable
                >> >> (e.g. by its address) has no information value altogether (unlike
                >> >> [Babel], [PATCH] etc.) and only takes up the much precious Subject:
                >> >> header space.
                >> >> 
                >> >> I have never understood why anyone would like anything like that.
                >> >>
                >> >
                >> > Because I can scan my inbox at a glance and triage quickly. Here's what
                >> > I see (with mh-e in emacs as my reader):
                >> >
                >> 
                >> (disclaimer: I've been seeing this argument for the best part of 20
                >> years, I doubt I'm bringing anything new to the table, but I feel
                >> strongly about it)
                >> 
                >> Triage is for *computers* to do, they're much better at it than humans.
                >> 
                >
                > You are kidding, right? How does the computer know what *I* need to do?
                >
                
                Because you tell it what to do?
                
                >> Also, those markers in the subject are obnoxious and *really* annoying,
                >> and take up valuable screen space.  Please don't clutter up the org-mode
                >> emails for zero benefit.
                >> 
                >
                > It is *not* zero benefit to me.
                
                OK.  Zero benefit to people who split their email then.  I must admit
                I've never understood why people don't, but to each his own.
                
                Robert
                
                ^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread

            • * Re: Applying style to a paragraph for HTML export
                     [not found]           ` <rpluim@gmail.com>
                2011-01-04 20:02             ` Nick Dokos
              @ 2011-05-05 14:05             ` Nick Dokos
                2011-05-05 14:35               ` Jambunathan K
                1 sibling, 1 reply; 30+ messages in thread
              From: Nick Dokos @ 2011-05-05 14:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
                To: emacs-orgmode; +Cc: nicholas.dokos
              
              Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com> wrote:
              
              > (I thought this would be a FAQ, but I can't find anything similar)
              > 
              > Hi,
              > 
              > I'm exporting from org to html, which is working well. Since my final
              > target is MSWord, I'd like to add style information to various
              > paragraphs, ie bold, underline etc. I can see how to do eg *bold* for
              > individual words, but how do I apply that kind of formatting to a span
              > of text?
              > 
              > (I'm CSS-ignorant, so please use small words and talk slowly)
              > 
              
              Reading section 12.5.8, "CSS support", and experimenting a bit,
              I came up with a short example that I hope will clarify that section
              for the CSS-ignorant (which I mostly am):
              
              --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
              #+OPTIONS: ^:nil
              #+STYLE: <style type=text/css> .bold {color: red;} </style>
              #+STYLE: <style type=text/css> .inner {color: blue;} </style>
              
              * Headline
                :PROPERTIES:
                :HTML_CONTAINER_CLASS: bold
                :END:
              This is a bold section. This is done by using the HTML_CONTAINER_CLASS
              property of the subtree and giving it the value bold, then setting the
              style for class _bold_ to accomplish the desired goal.
              
              But you can selectively
              #+HTML: <span class="inner">
              change some things like this
              #+HTML: </span>
              if you want.
              --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
              
              Here is what I know about CSS (but take it with the appropriate grain
              of salt - as I said, I'm mostly CSS-ignorant):
              
              The thing to remember is that you can add <span>...</span> to delimit
              HTML inline elements and <div>...</div> for HTML block elements.
              
              Each can be given a class: <span class="foo">...</span> or an id:
              <span id="bar">...</span>. Classes are hierarchical, ids are targeted.
              
              In the style definitions, you write
              
               .foo { style info; ...}
              
              for classes and
              
               #bar {style info; ...}
              
              for ids.
              
              So you can use #+HTML: ... to add spans or divs at the appropriate
              places, giving them a class or id as you see fit, and then add #+STYLE:
              definitions at the top to style them.
              
              Be careful when typing: the slightest error will cause the browser to just
              ignore whole swaths of styling, which makes debugging ... interesting.
              I tend to edit the html file one tiny thing at a time and redisplaying. When
              I've figured out what's wrong, I go back to the org file and try the result.
              
              Nick
              
              ^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread

            • • * Re: Applying style to a paragraph for HTML export
                  2011-05-05 14:05             ` Applying style to a paragraph for HTML export Nick Dokos
                @ 2011-05-05 14:35               ` Jambunathan K
                  0 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
                From: Jambunathan K @ 2011-05-05 14:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
                  To: emacs-orgmode
                
                Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com> writes:
                
                > Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com> wrote:
                >
                >> (I thought this would be a FAQ, but I can't find anything similar)
                >> 
                >> Hi,
                >> 
                >> I'm exporting from org to html, which is working well. Since my final
                >> target is MSWord, I'd like to add style information to various
                >> paragraphs, ie bold, underline etc. I can see how to do eg *bold* for
                >> individual words, but how do I apply that kind of formatting to a span
                >> of text?
                >> 
                >> (I'm CSS-ignorant, so please use small words and talk slowly)
                >> 
                >
                > Reading section 12.5.8, "CSS support", and experimenting a bit,
                > I came up with a short example that I hope will clarify that section
                > for the CSS-ignorant (which I mostly am):
                >
                > #+OPTIONS: ^:nil
                > #+STYLE: <style type=text/css> .bold {color: red;} </style>
                > #+STYLE: <style type=text/css> .inner {color: blue;} </style>
                >
                > * Headline
                >   :PROPERTIES:
                >   :HTML_CONTAINER_CLASS: bold
                >   :END:
                > This is a bold section. This is done by using the HTML_CONTAINER_CLASS
                > property of the subtree and giving it the value bold, then setting the
                > style for class _bold_ to accomplish the desired goal.
                >
                > But you can selectively
                > #+HTML: <span class="inner">
                > change some things like this
                > #+HTML: </span>
                > if you want.
                
                or like this:
                
                --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
                @<span class="inner"> change some things like this @</span>
                --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
                
                Note the "at"s preceding the html tags.
                
                >
                > Here is what I know about CSS (but take it with the appropriate grain
                > of salt - as I said, I'm mostly CSS-ignorant):
                >
                > The thing to remember is that you can add <span>...</span> to delimit
                > HTML inline elements and <div>...</div> for HTML block elements.
                >
                > Each can be given a class: <span class="foo">...</span> or an id:
                > <span id="bar">...</span>. Classes are hierarchical, ids are targeted.
                >
                > In the style definitions, you write
                >
                >  .foo { style info; ...}
                >
                > for classes and
                >
                >  #bar {style info; ...}
                >
                > for ids.
                >
                > So you can use #+HTML: ... to add spans or divs at the appropriate
                > places, giving them a class or id as you see fit, and then add #+STYLE:
                > definitions at the top to style them.
                >
                > Be careful when typing: the slightest error will cause the browser to just
                > ignore whole swaths of styling, which makes debugging ... interesting.
                > I tend to edit the html file one tiny thing at a time and redisplaying. When
                > I've figured out what's wrong, I go back to the org file and try the result.
                >
                > Nick
                >
                >
                
                -- 
                
                ^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread

          • * Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?
              2011-01-04 19:25         ` Robert Pluim
                   [not found]           ` <rpluim@gmail.com>
            @ 2011-01-05  9:13           ` Achim Gratz
              2011-01-05  9:56             ` Robert Pluim
              1 sibling, 1 reply; 30+ messages in thread
            From: Achim Gratz @ 2011-01-05  9:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
              To: emacs-orgmode
            
            Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com> writes:
            > Triage is for *computers* to do, they're much better at it than humans.
            
            Then let your MUA strip the tag off for you and live a happier life.
            
            > Also, those markers in the subject are obnoxious and *really* annoying,
            > and take up valuable screen space.  Please don't clutter up the org-mode
            > emails for zero benefit.
            
            They are very valuable when you need to quickly check things from a
            computer where you don't have set up your filtering for instance.  Plus
            they are indispensable for everyone who decides to not filter mail into
            folders or anything like that.  They don't force you to not filter, so
            why should you force them to change their workflow?
            
            > org-mode list email has a List-Id header, the list software has already
            > taken care of it for you.  I fail to see how much can go wrong with
            > filtering on that, configure it once and you're done. (or read the list
            > via gmane, all nicely split out for you).
            
            This header is there for software to see, not for humans.  There is
            multiple redundancy in both the headers and the tagging of the subject
            line and this is what makes things resilient.  And yes, I read the list
            via Gmane/GNUS, but that doesn't mean everyone has to do it the same
            way.
            
            
            Achim.
            -- 
            +<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+
            
            Wavetables for the Terratec KOMPLEXER:
            http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#KomplexerWaves
            
            ^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread

          • • * Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?
                2011-01-05  9:13           ` should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ? Achim Gratz
              @ 2011-01-05  9:56             ` Robert Pluim
                0 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
              From: Robert Pluim @ 2011-01-05  9:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
                To: emacs-orgmode
              
              Achim Gratz <Stromeko@nexgo.de> writes:
              
              > Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com> writes:
              >> Triage is for *computers* to do, they're much better at it than humans.
              >
              > Then let your MUA strip the tag off for you and live a happier life.
              >
              >> Also, those markers in the subject are obnoxious and *really* annoying,
              >> and take up valuable screen space.  Please don't clutter up the org-mode
              >> emails for zero benefit.
              >
              > They are very valuable when you need to quickly check things from a
              > computer where you don't have set up your filtering for instance.  Plus
              > they are indispensable for everyone who decides to not filter mail into
              > folders or anything like that.  They don't force you to not filter, so
              > why should you force them to change their workflow?
              
              Using your same argument from above, why don't they configure their MUA
              to add the tag?  Why should I be forced to change my workflow to strip
              it? (and the tags are not 'indispensable' for human triage: you can
              display the To/CC or List-Id headers, which will contain org-mode as well).
              
              >> org-mode list email has a List-Id header, the list software has already
              >> taken care of it for you.  I fail to see how much can go wrong with
              >> filtering on that, configure it once and you're done. (or read the list
              >> via gmane, all nicely split out for you).
              >
              > This header is there for software to see, not for humans.  There is
              > multiple redundancy in both the headers and the tagging of the subject
              > line and this is what makes things resilient.  And yes, I read the list
              > via Gmane/GNUS, but that doesn't mean everyone has to do it the same
              > way.
              
              Right, which is why I argue for the minimal simplicity of just setting
              the header, and letting people take care of anything else they want to
              do afterwards.
              
              Anyway, I think we've reached the end of this discussion, it's
              definitely not relevant to org-mode anymore.  Whoever maintains the list
              will decide what they prefer.
              
              Robert
              
              ^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread

* Applying style to a paragraph for HTML export
@ 2011-05-05  9:37 Robert Pluim
  2011-05-05 12:05 ` Jambunathan K
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 30+ messages in thread
From: Robert Pluim @ 2011-05-05  9:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: emacs-orgmode

(I thought this would be a FAQ, but I can't find anything similar)

Hi,

I'm exporting from org to html, which is working well. Since my final
target is MSWord, I'd like to add style information to various
paragraphs, ie bold, underline etc. I can see how to do eg *bold* for
individual words, but how do I apply that kind of formatting to a span
of text?

(I'm CSS-ignorant, so please use small words and talk slowly)

Thanks

Robert

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread

• * Re: Applying style to a paragraph for HTML export
    2011-05-05  9:37 Applying style to a paragraph for HTML export Robert Pluim
  @ 2011-05-05 12:05 ` Jambunathan K
    2011-05-05 12:33   ` Robert Pluim
    0 siblings, 1 reply; 30+ messages in thread
  From: Jambunathan K @ 2011-05-05 12:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
    To: Robert Pluim; +Cc: emacs-orgmode
  
  Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com> writes:
  
  > (I thought this would be a FAQ, but I can't find anything similar)
  >
  > Hi,
  >
  > I'm exporting from org to html, which is working well. Since my final
  > target is MSWord, I'd like to add style information to various
  > paragraphs, ie bold, underline etc. I can see how to do eg *bold* for
  > individual words, but how do I apply that kind of formatting to a span
  > of text?
  
  I recommend using the odt exporter and then use LibreOffice to convert
  the resulting file to MSWord.
  
  http://orgmode.org/worg/org-faq.html#convert-to-open-office
  
  You can search for org-odt in this mailing list if you need further
  info.
  
  Jambunathan K.
  
  >
  > (I'm CSS-ignorant, so please use small words and talk slowly)
  >
  > Thanks
  >
  > Robert
  >
  >
  >
  
  -- 
  
  ^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread

• • * Re: Applying style to a paragraph for HTML export
      2011-05-05 12:05 ` Jambunathan K
    @ 2011-05-05 12:33   ` Robert Pluim
      2011-05-05 12:45     ` Jambunathan K
      2011-05-05 12:51     ` Jambunathan K
      0 siblings, 2 replies; 30+ messages in thread
    From: Robert Pluim @ 2011-05-05 12:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
      To: emacs-orgmode
    
    Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> writes:
    
    > Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com> writes:
    >
    >> (I thought this would be a FAQ, but I can't find anything similar)
    >>
    >> Hi,
    >>
    >> I'm exporting from org to html, which is working well. Since my final
    >> target is MSWord, I'd like to add style information to various
    >> paragraphs, ie bold, underline etc. I can see how to do eg *bold* for
    >> individual words, but how do I apply that kind of formatting to a span
    >> of text?
    >
    > I recommend using the odt exporter and then use LibreOffice to convert
    > the resulting file to MSWord.
    >
    > http://orgmode.org/worg/org-faq.html#convert-to-open-office
    
    Whilst that would work, it's inherently a 2-step process, versus 1 for
    the html route, plus it requires installing yet-another-application. In
    any case, the example file for the odt-converter has corrected my
    misunderstanding: *bold* works even for multiple words (although it
    appears the various style markers don't nest: */bold-italic/* give me
    the same as *bold*).
    
    Thanks
    
    Robert
    
    ^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread

  • • * Re: Applying style to a paragraph for HTML export
        2011-05-05 12:33   ` Robert Pluim
      @ 2011-05-05 12:45     ` Jambunathan K
        2011-05-05 13:16       ` Robert Pluim
        2011-05-05 12:51     ` Jambunathan K
        1 sibling, 1 reply; 30+ messages in thread
      From: Jambunathan K @ 2011-05-05 12:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
        To: emacs-orgmode
      
      Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com> writes:
      
      > Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> writes:
      >
      >> Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com> writes:
      >>
      >>> (I thought this would be a FAQ, but I can't find anything similar)
      >>>
      >>> Hi,
      >>>
      >>> I'm exporting from org to html, which is working well. Since my final
      >>> target is MSWord, I'd like to add style information to various
      >>> paragraphs, ie bold, underline etc. I can see how to do eg *bold* for
      >>> individual words, but how do I apply that kind of formatting to a span
      >>> of text?
      >>
      >> I recommend using the odt exporter and then use LibreOffice to convert
      >> the resulting file to MSWord.
      >>
      >> http://orgmode.org/worg/org-faq.html#convert-to-open-office
      >
      > Whilst that would work, it's inherently a 2-step process, versus 1 for
      > the html route, plus it requires installing yet-another-application. 
      
      I thought you said your final target is MSWord and not html.
      
      > In any case, the example file for the odt-converter has corrected my
      > misunderstanding: *bold* works even for multiple words (although it
      > appears the various style markers don't nest: */bold-italic/* give me
      > the same as *bold*).
      
      Spanned text has to be part of the single emacs line and not be broken
      across multiple lines.
      
      >
      > Thanks
      >
      > Robert
      >
      >
      >
      
      -- 
      
      ^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread

    • • * Re: Applying style to a paragraph for HTML export
          2011-05-05 12:45     ` Jambunathan K
        @ 2011-05-05 13:16       ` Robert Pluim
          0 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
        From: Robert Pluim @ 2011-05-05 13:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
          To: emacs-orgmode
        
        Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> writes:
        
        > Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com> writes:
        >
        >> Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> writes:
        >>
        >>> Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com> writes:
        >>>
        >>>> (I thought this would be a FAQ, but I can't find anything similar)
        >>>>
        >>>> Hi,
        >>>>
        >>>> I'm exporting from org to html, which is working well. Since my final
        >>>> target is MSWord, I'd like to add style information to various
        >>>> paragraphs, ie bold, underline etc. I can see how to do eg *bold* for
        >>>> individual words, but how do I apply that kind of formatting to a span
        >>>> of text?
        >>>
        >>> I recommend using the odt exporter and then use LibreOffice to convert
        >>> the resulting file to MSWord.
        >>>
        >>> http://orgmode.org/worg/org-faq.html#convert-to-open-office
        >>
        >> Whilst that would work, it's inherently a 2-step process, versus 1 for
        >> the html route, plus it requires installing yet-another-application. 
        >
        > I thought you said your final target is MSWord and not html.
        
        It is, but MSWord can read html directly, so no extra step is required.
        
        >> In any case, the example file for the odt-converter has corrected my
        >> misunderstanding: *bold* works even for multiple words (although it
        >> appears the various style markers don't nest: */bold-italic/* give me
        >> the same as *bold*).
        >
        > Spanned text has to be part of the single emacs line and not be broken
        > across multiple lines.
        
        Ah, I don't think that's documented anywhere. Looks like I'll have to
        turn off auto-fill.
        
        Thanks
        
        Robert
        
        ^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread

    • * Re: Applying style to a paragraph for HTML export
        2011-05-05 12:33   ` Robert Pluim
        2011-05-05 12:45     ` Jambunathan K
      @ 2011-05-05 12:51     ` Jambunathan K
        1 sibling, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
      From: Jambunathan K @ 2011-05-05 12:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
        To: emacs-orgmode
      
      Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com> writes:
      
      > Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> writes:
      >
      >> Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com> writes:
      >>
      >>> (I thought this would be a FAQ, but I can't find anything similar)
      >>>
      >>> Hi,
      >>>
      >>> I'm exporting from org to html, which is working well. Since my final
      >>> target is MSWord, I'd like to add style information to various
      >>> paragraphs, ie bold, underline etc. I can see how to do eg *bold* for
      >>> individual words, but how do I apply that kind of formatting to a span
      >>> of text?
      >>
      >> I recommend using the odt exporter and then use LibreOffice to convert
      >> the resulting file to MSWord.
      >>
      >> http://orgmode.org/worg/org-faq.html#convert-to-open-office
      >
      > Whilst that would work, it's inherently a 2-step process, versus 1 for
      > the html route, plus it requires installing yet-another-application. In
      > any case, the example file for the odt-converter has corrected my
      > misunderstanding: *bold* works even for multiple words (although it
      > appears the various style markers don't nest: */bold-italic/* give me
      > the same as *bold*).
      
      If you are using the odt exporter and if you don't use strikethrough
      (let's say) you can repurpose OrgStrike style to render bold italic
      style using the Stylist.
      
      >
      > Thanks
      >
      > Robert
      >
      >
      >
      
      -- 
      
      ^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2011-05-05 14:35 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-12-17  8:52 should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ? Torsten Wagner
2010-12-17 12:15 ` Andrew J. Korty
2010-12-17 14:00   ` Giovanni Ridolfi
2010-12-17 15:56   ` Nick Dokos
2010-12-17 17:28     ` Samuel Wales
2010-12-17 15:40 ` Nick Dokos
2010-12-17 18:21 ` William Gardella
2010-12-17 20:33 ` William Gardella
2010-12-17 21:16   ` Eric S Fraga
2010-12-18 12:09 ` Torsten Wagner
2011-01-04 15:19   ` Bastien
2011-01-04 17:39     ` Štěpán Němec
2011-01-04 18:12       ` Bastien
2011-01-04 18:31         ` Jeff Horn
2011-01-04 19:49         ` Štěpán Němec
2011-01-04 20:43           ` Nick Dokos
2011-01-04 18:52       ` Nick Dokos
2011-01-04 19:25         ` Robert Pluim
     [not found]           ` <rpluim@gmail.com>
2011-01-04 20:02             ` Nick Dokos
2011-01-05  8:15               ` Robert Pluim
2011-05-05 14:05             ` Applying style to a paragraph for HTML export Nick Dokos
2011-05-05 14:35               ` Jambunathan K
2011-01-05  9:13           ` should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ? Achim Gratz
2011-01-05  9:56             ` Robert Pluim
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-05-05  9:37 Applying style to a paragraph for HTML export Robert Pluim
2011-05-05 12:05 ` Jambunathan K
2011-05-05 12:33   ` Robert Pluim
2011-05-05 12:45     ` Jambunathan K
2011-05-05 13:16       ` Robert Pluim
2011-05-05 12:51     ` Jambunathan K

Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

	https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).