From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bastien Subject: Re: Extra space between list items in HTML export Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:34:52 +0200 Message-ID: <878vc71jsj.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> References: <12349.1347324720@alphaville.americas.hpqcorp.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:43854) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TDytD-0001tP-Ly for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:35:09 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TDyt6-00066h-Hb for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:35:03 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com ([209.85.212.177]:57987) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TDyt6-00066W-A7 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:34:56 -0400 Received: by wibhn17 with SMTP id hn17so3316043wib.12 for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 07:34:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <12349.1347324720@alphaville.americas.hpqcorp.net> (Nick Dokos's message of "Mon, 10 Sep 2012 20:52:00 -0400") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: nicholas.dokos@hp.com Cc: Richard Stanton , "emacs-orgmode@gnu.org" , Jambunathan K Nick Dokos writes: > With Richard's example[fn:1] and the new exporter, we get different > behavior with HTML and latex (without the num: option or with num:t): > > o the second list is unordered in HTML, but enumerated in latex. > > o we get third level section numbers decorating the list entries in HTML, > but not in latex. > > Somebody needs to decide what the behavior should be, but then *every* > exporter should behave the same way wrt that set of options. I think headings that are lower than the n level in "#+OPTION h:n" should be replaced by enumarated list when num:t and by unordered list items when num:nil. If we all agree, let's move toward this. Thanks, -- Bastien