* Ordered List (Alphabetical) and HTML Export @ 2013-05-30 18:57 Josiah Schwab 2013-06-30 21:45 ` Bastien 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Josiah Schwab @ 2013-05-30 18:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: emacs-orgmode Hi All, I am using orgmode 8.0.3 with emacs 24.3. I frequently use ordered lists with alphabetical bullets. I have (setq org-list-allow-alphabetical t) in my .emacs. I just noticed that when I export an alphabetical list using the HTML exporter, it appears as a numerical list in the rendered HTML. My expectation was that the ol tags for this list would look like <ol type="a">, but instead they are just plain <ol>. (At the end of the message is a snippet that lets you reproduce this.) From poking around in ox-html.el (specfically, looking at org-html-begin-plain-list), I see that there is no code that handles the list "type". I spent a few minutes looking at org-list.el, but I'm new enough to both org-mode and elisp, that I couldn't immediately see how to extend org-html-begin-plain-list so that it could figure out the kind of list bullet and properly set the type. Could anyone help walk me through what one would need to do to get the desired behavior of HTML export preserving alphabetically bulleted lists? Best, Josiah Schwab P.S. Here's an example org snippet. * Letters a. foo b. bar c. baz * Numbers 1. foo 2. bar 3. baz ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Ordered List (Alphabetical) and HTML Export 2013-05-30 18:57 Ordered List (Alphabetical) and HTML Export Josiah Schwab @ 2013-06-30 21:45 ` Bastien 2013-07-01 9:42 ` Nicolas Goaziou 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Bastien @ 2013-06-30 21:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Josiah Schwab; +Cc: emacs-orgmode Hi Josiah, Josiah Schwab <jschwab@gmail.com> writes: > I am using orgmode 8.0.3 with emacs 24.3. I frequently use > ordered lists with alphabetical bullets. I have > (setq org-list-allow-alphabetical t) > in my .emacs. You should be able to export them to <ol type="a"> lists now (from the maint branch, which will be the next stable release.) -- Bastien ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Ordered List (Alphabetical) and HTML Export 2013-06-30 21:45 ` Bastien @ 2013-07-01 9:42 ` Nicolas Goaziou 2013-07-01 10:15 ` Bastien 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Nicolas Goaziou @ 2013-07-01 9:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bastien; +Cc: Josiah Schwab, emacs-orgmode Hello, Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> writes: > Josiah Schwab <jschwab@gmail.com> writes: > >> I am using orgmode 8.0.3 with emacs 24.3. I frequently use >> ordered lists with alphabetical bullets. I have >> (setq org-list-allow-alphabetical t) >> in my .emacs. > > You should be able to export them to <ol type="a"> lists now > (from the maint branch, which will be the next stable release.) I don't think this is a good change. As explained in this thread, alphabetical lists are only a visual clue (and a bad one, IMO) which have no particular meaning wrt export (Org only recognizes `ordered', `unordered' and `description' lists). This is why this "feature" was never implemented in the last exporter. The OP can probably use CSS to get what he wants without hard coding it in the back-end. Moreover, it introduces an incompatibility with `latex' back-end, since this one won't enforce alphabetical bullets in the same situation. Therefore, I suggest to revert the patch. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Ordered List (Alphabetical) and HTML Export 2013-07-01 9:42 ` Nicolas Goaziou @ 2013-07-01 10:15 ` Bastien 2013-07-01 10:21 ` Bastien 2013-07-01 11:49 ` Nicolas Goaziou 0 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Bastien @ 2013-07-01 10:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nicolas Goaziou; +Cc: Josiah Schwab, emacs-orgmode [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 534 bytes --] Hi Nicolas, Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaziou@gmail.com> writes: > Therefore, I suggest to revert the patch. This simple .tex file allows for alphabetical enumeration. Given that Org allows alphabetical list, the OP question is natural and will come back. There is no clue in Org that alphabetical lists are just visual clues. I see no harm in supporting more flexibility where we can. E.g. the attached .tex file produces alphabetical lists, it should be simple enough to implement this in ox-latex.el. Let me know what you think, [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #2: enumerate_alpha.tex --] [-- Type: text/x-tex, Size: 150 bytes --] \documentclass[12pt]{article} \usepackage{enumerate} \begin{document} \begin{enumerate}[a.] \item Item 1 \item Item 2 \end{enumerate} \end{document} [-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 14 bytes --] -- Bastien ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Ordered List (Alphabetical) and HTML Export 2013-07-01 10:15 ` Bastien @ 2013-07-01 10:21 ` Bastien 2013-07-01 10:49 ` Sebastien Vauban 2013-07-01 11:49 ` Nicolas Goaziou 1 sibling, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Bastien @ 2013-07-01 10:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nicolas Goaziou; +Cc: Josiah Schwab, emacs-orgmode Bastien <bzg@altern.org> writes: > I see no harm in supporting more flexibility where we can. I should add that Org is a way for many LaTeX newbies to discover LaTeX, supporting alphabetical lists in LaTeX (and other backend) goes into this direction IMO. -- Bastien ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Ordered List (Alphabetical) and HTML Export 2013-07-01 10:21 ` Bastien @ 2013-07-01 10:49 ` Sebastien Vauban 0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Sebastien Vauban @ 2013-07-01 10:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: emacs-orgmode-mXXj517/zsQ Hello, Bastien wrote: > Bastien <bzg-whniv8GeeGkdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> writes: > >> I see no harm in supporting more flexibility where we can. > > I should add that Org is a way for many LaTeX newbies to discover LaTeX, > supporting alphabetical lists in LaTeX (and other backend) goes into this > direction IMO. Speaking of lists, when I showed Org mode this week-end to some "hard LaTeX guy", when he saw that we could choose between "-", "+" and "*" for itemized lists and between "1." and "1)" for enumerated lists (whichever the depth level), he suggested (for enumerated lists) that: - 2nd level items should be: (a) ... (b) ... (c) ... (d) ... - 3rd level items should be: i. ... ii. ... iii. ... iv. ... or: i. ... ii. ... iii. ... iv. ... - 4th level items should be: A. ... B. ... C. ... D. ... It is what is implemented (following typographical rules?) for both French and English (at least) in LaTeX. See: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- \documentclass[english,french]{article} \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} \usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} \usepackage{babel} % \begin{document} \newcommand{\test}{% \begin{enumerate} \item \begin{enumerate} \item \begin{enumerate} \item \begin{enumerate} \item \item \item \item \end{enumerate} \item \item \item \end{enumerate} \item \item \item \end{enumerate} \item \item \item \end{enumerate} } \test{} \selectlanguage{english} \test{} \end{document} --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Dunno what you think about that, dunno if that's feasible and easy... But wanted to share with you his point of view... Best regards, Seb -- Sebastien Vauban ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Ordered List (Alphabetical) and HTML Export 2013-07-01 10:15 ` Bastien 2013-07-01 10:21 ` Bastien @ 2013-07-01 11:49 ` Nicolas Goaziou 2013-07-01 12:54 ` Bastien 2013-07-01 14:29 ` Carsten Dominik 1 sibling, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Nicolas Goaziou @ 2013-07-01 11:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bastien; +Cc: Josiah Schwab, emacs-orgmode Bastien <bzg@altern.org> writes: > Given that Org allows alphabetical list, the OP question is > natural and will come back. Of course it will. And it had been discussed when the feature was introduced. I don't mind discussing it again, but there's nothing new on the table. I thought it had a FAQ entry: I was wrong. > There is no clue in Org that alphabetical lists are just visual clues. The manual is one clue. Quoting section "2.7 Plain lists" Org knows ordered lists, unordered lists, and description lists. * _Unordered_ list items start with '-', '+', or '*'(1) as bullets. * _Ordered_ list items start with a numeral followed by either a period or a right parenthesis(2), such as '1.' or '1)'(3). If you want a list to start with a different value (e.g., 20), start the text of the item with '[@20]'(4). Those constructs can be used in any item of the list in order to enforce a particular numbering. * _Description_ list items are unordered list items, and contain the separator ' :: ' to distinguish the description _term_ from the description. "Alphabetical list" is only a footnote in this paragraph and clearly not a type on its own. Merely a convenience. > I see no harm in supporting more flexibility where we can. Only where it makes sense: this is not Org's job to replace CSS. Org is about structure, not appearance. Also, I do see harm. Introducing a "feature" in one major back-end means updating other major back-ends, for the sake of consistency. LaTeX (as in "pdflatex") already does a good job to produce item markers. It is also configurable. Enforcing it is almost certainly a bad idea anyway. Let's think about it. If user has a non-nil `org-list-allow-alphabetical' and don't use them, should we make sure that items are _never_ alphabetical in the output (i.e. always numbers)? Also, what if users start asking for roman numbers as item markers? Greek letters? Of course, Org doesn't provide them in the buffer, but doesn't it sound silly to offer alphabetical lists only when so many other types are supported by the targeted languages? Shouldn't back-ends do the extra step in that direction? We must draw a clear line between what Org should and shouldn't do. IMO, this patch is on the wrong side of the line. > Let me know what you think, I think the same as I did way back when we introduced this. I don't like alphabetical lists and I don't think we should offer more support for them. I would be happier if there was less possible bullets in Org syntax. This probably won't happen, but I see no reason to make the situation worse. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Ordered List (Alphabetical) and HTML Export 2013-07-01 11:49 ` Nicolas Goaziou @ 2013-07-01 12:54 ` Bastien 2013-07-01 13:49 ` Nicolas Goaziou 2013-07-01 14:29 ` Carsten Dominik 1 sibling, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Bastien @ 2013-07-01 12:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nicolas Goaziou; +Cc: Josiah Schwab, emacs-orgmode (I've removed the feature from maint (and master) so that we can take the time to discuss it.) Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaziou@gmail.com> writes: > Bastien <bzg@altern.org> writes: > >> Given that Org allows alphabetical list, the OP question is >> natural and will come back. > > Of course it will. And it had been discussed when the feature was > introduced. I don't mind discussing it again, but there's nothing new on > the table. I thought it had a FAQ entry: I was wrong. > >> There is no clue in Org that alphabetical lists are just visual clues. > > The manual is one clue. Quoting section "2.7 Plain lists" > > Org knows ordered lists, unordered lists, and description lists. > * _Unordered_ list items start with '-', '+', or '*'(1) as bullets. > * _Ordered_ list items start with a numeral followed by either a > period or a right parenthesis(2), such as '1.' or '1)'(3). If you > want a list to start with a different value (e.g., 20), start the > text of the item with '[@20]'(4). Those constructs can be used in > any item of the list in order to enforce a particular numbering. > * _Description_ list items are unordered list items, and contain the > separator ' :: ' to distinguish the description _term_ from the > description. > > "Alphabetical list" is only a footnote in this paragraph and clearly not > a type on its own. Merely a convenience. There is no clue in here. The way it is, the manual seems to suggest that alphabetical lists are supported (including in the export) as long as you have (setq org-list-allow-alphabetical t). We need to make the manual more explicit here. >> I see no harm in supporting more flexibility where we can. > > Only where it makes sense: this is not Org's job to replace CSS. Org is > about structure, not appearance. Structure vs. appearance is a useful distinction, but very often it is overrated as a way to think about what a tool should/should not do. > Also, I do see harm. Introducing a "feature" in one major back-end means > updating other major back-ends, for the sake of consistency. LaTeX (as > in "pdflatex") already does a good job to produce item markers. It is > also configurable. Enforcing it is almost certainly a bad idea anyway. > > Let's think about it. If user has a non-nil > `org-list-allow-alphabetical' and don't use them, should we make sure > that items are _never_ alphabetical in the output (i.e. always numbers)? Clearly no. > Also, what if users start asking for roman numbers as item markers? <ol type="I"> works fine. There are solutions for LaTeX too. > Greek letters? Of course, Org doesn't provide them in the buffer, but > doesn't it sound silly to offer alphabetical lists only when so many > other types are supported by the targeted languages? Shouldn't back-ends > do the extra step in that direction? No. This users can clearly understand: there are (at least human) limits to what we can implement. But this is different that saying him: "Exporting a) b) c) as 1. 2. 3. is a feature, not a bug." > We must draw a clear line between what Org should and shouldn't do. IMO, > this patch is on the wrong side of the line. The patch was too bold, I give you that :) >> Let me know what you think, > > I think the same as I did way back when we introduced this. I don't like > alphabetical lists and I don't think we should offer more support for > them. I would be happier if there was less possible bullets in Org > syntax. This probably won't happen, but I see no reason to make the > situation worse. I would perfectly understand that it's too much maintainance ahead. This sounds perfectly reasonable to me -- and (perhaps paradoxically) less arbitrary than "this does not fit Org's function, this is only aesthetic." Alphabetical lists are aesthetic sugar both in Org and its outputs, and Org is nice because it tries to keep the input and output both structurally and aesthetically similar. For example, horizontal lines in table are purely aesthetic, both in Org and its output. (They may have semantic value within the document, but just as alphabetical bullets.) Users expect Org to do a good job at putting the right horizontal lines in the output because it matters to them. Now: I tend to draw the line between what matters to users and what does not matter, not using the structure vs. aesthetic distinction, which is very relative. IOW, I'd ask the users if then want it or not. Ok, end of rant, back to code :) Thanks, -- Bastien ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Ordered List (Alphabetical) and HTML Export 2013-07-01 12:54 ` Bastien @ 2013-07-01 13:49 ` Nicolas Goaziou 2013-07-01 14:13 ` Jambunathan K ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Nicolas Goaziou @ 2013-07-01 13:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bastien; +Cc: Josiah Schwab, emacs-orgmode Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> writes: > (I've removed the feature from maint (and master) so that we can take > the time to discuss it.) Fair enough. >> Let's think about it. If user has a non-nil >> `org-list-allow-alphabetical' and don't use them, should we make sure >> that items are _never_ alphabetical in the output (i.e. always numbers)? > > Clearly no. Interesting. As you know, pdflatex will produce, at some levels, alpha bullets for ordered lists, unless told otherwise. So, a. Item exported to 1. Item is wrong (hence your patch), but 1. Item exported to (a) Item isn't wrong (according to your answer). I just cannot make sense out of it. Either Org controls totally its output (my head hurts just thinking about it) or it doesn't. Your patch stands in-between: it's confusing. >> Also, what if users start asking for roman numbers as item markers? > > <ol type="I"> works fine. There are solutions for LaTeX too. Of course there are solutions. For ODT, too. But I certainly don't want to open that can of worms. >> Greek letters? Of course, Org doesn't provide them in the buffer, but >> doesn't it sound silly to offer alphabetical lists only when so many >> other types are supported by the targeted languages? Shouldn't back-ends >> do the extra step in that direction? > > No. This users can clearly understand: there are (at least human) > limits to what we can implement. But this is different that saying > him: "Exporting a) b) c) as 1. 2. 3. is a feature, not a bug." That's not what we are telling him. Likewise, we are not promising that exporting a "- " item will always call for a hyphen in the output: it may be a bullet instead. The only promise wrt bullet type and export is: export will preserve `ordered', `unordered' and `description' status of plain lists. That's all. Supporting this "simple" thing already requires hundreds lines of code in some export back-ends. Currently, in Org syntax, "a) b) c)" is an alias for "ordered list", as "1) 2) 3)". > I would perfectly understand that it's too much maintainance ahead. > This sounds perfectly reasonable to me -- and (perhaps paradoxically) > less arbitrary than "this does not fit Org's function, this is only > aesthetic." OK. Count me in the "too much maintenance ahead", then. > Alphabetical lists are aesthetic sugar both in Org and its outputs, I do not agree with "and its outputs" part, since there was nothing in this direction before your patch. > and Org is nice because it tries to keep the input and output both > structurally and aesthetically similar. Does it? In Beamer back-end, a block is very different, visually speaking, from a headline. > Now: I tend to draw the line between what matters to users and what > does not matter, not using the structure vs. aesthetic distinction, > which is very relative. IOW, I'd ask the users if then want it or > not. There can be no line between "what matters to users" and "what does not", because wherever you may put that line, someone will always be interested in a feature on the other side. Tell me about relative distinctions ;) I'll take "structure vs. aesthetics" anytime, because you can always argue about it. On the other hand, there's not much to say when someone tells you: "this feature is very important in my daily work, let's provide it". > Ok, end of rant, back to code :) Whatever the conclusion of this thread is, I hope it will make for a FAQ entry so we do not start it over every now and then. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Ordered List (Alphabetical) and HTML Export 2013-07-01 13:49 ` Nicolas Goaziou @ 2013-07-01 14:13 ` Jambunathan K 2013-07-01 14:19 ` Bastien 2013-07-01 14:32 ` Bastien 2 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Jambunathan K @ 2013-07-01 14:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: emacs-orgmode The buck stops with the maintainer of the files. It is only polite and good etiquette that any change that is not-trivial or not-routine be discussed beforehand. Sneaking in changes - just because it can be done in 5 minutes - is what a jerk would do. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Ordered List (Alphabetical) and HTML Export 2013-07-01 13:49 ` Nicolas Goaziou 2013-07-01 14:13 ` Jambunathan K @ 2013-07-01 14:19 ` Bastien 2013-07-01 14:32 ` Bastien 2 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Bastien @ 2013-07-01 14:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nicolas Goaziou; +Cc: Josiah Schwab, emacs-orgmode Hi Nicolas, Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaziou@gmail.com> writes: > Whatever the conclusion of this thread is, I hope it will make for a FAQ > entry so we do not start it over every now and then. Here is it: http://orgmode.org/worg/org-faq.html#sec-11-5 -- Bastien ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Ordered List (Alphabetical) and HTML Export 2013-07-01 13:49 ` Nicolas Goaziou 2013-07-01 14:13 ` Jambunathan K 2013-07-01 14:19 ` Bastien @ 2013-07-01 14:32 ` Bastien 2 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Bastien @ 2013-07-01 14:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nicolas Goaziou; +Cc: Josiah Schwab, emacs-orgmode Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaziou@gmail.com> writes: >>> Let's think about it. If user has a non-nil >>> `org-list-allow-alphabetical' and don't use them, should we make sure >>> that items are _never_ alphabetical in the output (i.e. always numbers)? >> >> Clearly no. > > Interesting. As you know, pdflatex will produce, at some levels, alpha > bullets for ordered lists, unless told otherwise. So, > > a. Item exported to 1. Item > > is wrong (hence your patch), but > > 1. Item exported to (a) Item > > isn't wrong (according to your answer). I just cannot make sense out of > it. Either Org controls totally its output (my head hurts just thinking > about it) or it doesn't. Your patch stands in-between: it's confusing. Maybe I misunderstand your question. If a user has (setq org-list-allow-alphabetical t) but don't use alphabetical lists, I don't see where is the problem. > The only promise wrt bullet type and export is: export will preserve > `ordered', `unordered' and `description' status of plain lists. That's > all. Supporting this "simple" thing already requires hundreds lines of > code in some export back-ends. I know. But speaking of structure vs. appearance: ODT has no notion of descriptive lists, this is just a visual emulation of it. So the choice of limiting the syntax to `ordered', `unordered', `description' is fine to me, but has some arbitrary ground too. > Currently, in Org syntax, "a) b) c)" is an alias for "ordered list", as > "1) 2) 3)". > >> I would perfectly understand that it's too much maintainance ahead. >> This sounds perfectly reasonable to me -- and (perhaps paradoxically) >> less arbitrary than "this does not fit Org's function, this is only >> aesthetic." > > OK. Count me in the "too much maintenance ahead", then. Fair enough. >> Alphabetical lists are aesthetic sugar both in Org and its outputs, > > I do not agree with "and its outputs" part, since there was nothing in > this direction before your patch. I was speaking of alphabetical lists in general: they are aesthetic sugar in HTML as well (i.e. there is no <aol> tag for "alphabetical ordered list".) >> and Org is nice because it tries to keep the input and output both >> structurally and aesthetically similar. > > Does it? In Beamer back-end, a block is very different, visually > speaking, from a headline. It does where it can. -- Bastien ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Ordered List (Alphabetical) and HTML Export 2013-07-01 11:49 ` Nicolas Goaziou 2013-07-01 12:54 ` Bastien @ 2013-07-01 14:29 ` Carsten Dominik 1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Carsten Dominik @ 2013-07-01 14:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nicolas Goaziou; +Cc: Josiah Schwab, Bastien, emacs-orgmode On 1.7.2013, at 13:49, Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaziou@gmail.com> wrote: > Bastien <bzg@altern.org> writes: > >> Given that Org allows alphabetical list, the OP question is >> natural and will come back. > > Of course it will. And it had been discussed when the feature was > introduced. I don't mind discussing it again, but there's nothing new on > the table. I thought it had a FAQ entry: I was wrong. > >> There is no clue in Org that alphabetical lists are just visual clues. > > The manual is one clue. Quoting section "2.7 Plain lists" > > Org knows ordered lists, unordered lists, and description lists. > * _Unordered_ list items start with '-', '+', or '*'(1) as bullets. > * _Ordered_ list items start with a numeral followed by either a > period or a right parenthesis(2), such as '1.' or '1)'(3). If you > want a list to start with a different value (e.g., 20), start the > text of the item with '[@20]'(4). Those constructs can be used in > any item of the list in order to enforce a particular numbering. > * _Description_ list items are unordered list items, and contain the > separator ' :: ' to distinguish the description _term_ from the > description. > > "Alphabetical list" is only a footnote in this paragraph and clearly not > a type on its own. Merely a convenience. > >> I see no harm in supporting more flexibility where we can. > > Only where it makes sense: this is not Org's job to replace CSS. Org is > about structure, not appearance. Hi, as I have expressed earlier in a different thread, I think Nicolas is right here. The backend should decide how lists (ordered and unordered) are formatted, because this is the right way construct document structure. LaTeX and HTML are really the guide there. Lists are written with enumerate and itemize, and the style sets the bullets for different levels. When I write documents, I often choose only different types of bullets to make it easier for me to remember what level I am on. I think in almost all cases the structure created by a good document formatter will provide the cleanest and most readable output. So I would like to keep the current convention. If we must, we can have something like the [@N] to enforce a particular bullet style. - Carsten > > Also, I do see harm. Introducing a "feature" in one major back-end means > updating other major back-ends, for the sake of consistency. LaTeX (as > in "pdflatex") already does a good job to produce item markers. It is > also configurable. Enforcing it is almost certainly a bad idea anyway. > > Let's think about it. If user has a non-nil > `org-list-allow-alphabetical' and don't use them, should we make sure > that items are _never_ alphabetical in the output (i.e. always numbers)? > Also, what if users start asking for roman numbers as item markers? > Greek letters? Of course, Org doesn't provide them in the buffer, but > doesn't it sound silly to offer alphabetical lists only when so many > other types are supported by the targeted languages? Shouldn't back-ends > do the extra step in that direction? > > We must draw a clear line between what Org should and shouldn't do. IMO, > this patch is on the wrong side of the line. > >> Let me know what you think, > > I think the same as I did way back when we introduced this. I don't like > alphabetical lists and I don't think we should offer more support for > them. I would be happier if there was less possible bullets in Org > syntax. This probably won't happen, but I see no reason to make the > situation worse. > > > Regards, > > -- > Nicolas Goaziou > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-07-01 14:32 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 13+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2013-05-30 18:57 Ordered List (Alphabetical) and HTML Export Josiah Schwab 2013-06-30 21:45 ` Bastien 2013-07-01 9:42 ` Nicolas Goaziou 2013-07-01 10:15 ` Bastien 2013-07-01 10:21 ` Bastien 2013-07-01 10:49 ` Sebastien Vauban 2013-07-01 11:49 ` Nicolas Goaziou 2013-07-01 12:54 ` Bastien 2013-07-01 13:49 ` Nicolas Goaziou 2013-07-01 14:13 ` Jambunathan K 2013-07-01 14:19 ` Bastien 2013-07-01 14:32 ` Bastien 2013-07-01 14:29 ` Carsten Dominik
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).