From: Tim Cross <email@example.com>
To: Timothy <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Syntax Proposal: Multi-line Table Cells/Text Wrapping
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 14:50:07 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <email@example.com> (raw)
Timothy <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Tim Cross <email@example.com> writes:
>> In principal, it wold be great to be able to support multi-row columns.
>> However, I'm not sure how easily this can actually be implemented in a
>> consistent and maintainable manner.
> Mmmm, this of feels like something where you'll quickly learn how hard
> it is/isn't when you try to implement it.
>> From watching these discussions in the past, I think the big stumbling
>> block is how easily multi-row columns can be added and maintained in the
>> various export formats. Some are easy, like HTML, but others are less
>> so. In particular, I know from my many years working with Latex,
>> multi-row columns are not straight-forward. There are lots of edge cases
>> to deal with and it is hard to get a consistent result programatically.
>> Proposals like this one can seem simple and straight-forward on the
>> surface. However, implementation is another matter. All of the exporters
>> will need to be updated to handle this new syntax and it will probably
>> take a fair bit of work to handle it correctly in just plain org files
>> (formatting, highlighting etc).
> Currently if you were to try this content with the proposed syntax,
> content is just put in the top left cell of the group. This seems like a
> reasonable fallback to me. Then for HTML we have colspan/rowspan, and
> for LaTeX there's \multicolumn and with the multirow package \multirow.
> FWIW just formatting would need to be updated for Org files.
> Highlighting is fine as is.
>> If this was something people were prepared to put the time into
>> implementing, I think it must be done in a completely separate feature
>> branch and would need to be fully tested (including all back end
>> exporters) before it can be merged into the mainline branch. It would
>> also be important to profile and ensure it does not have significant
>> impact on performance.
>> I am a little concerned about the expansion and addition of features in
>> org mode when there seems to already be a challenge with respect to
>> maintenance and bug fixing. Personally, I would prefer an org mode which
>> is consistent and reliable over one with large numbers of features that
>> is less stable and slower.
> I appreciate this concern, but I do think that the ability to have
> multi-col/row cells is invaluable in many large tables, and so would be
> a very good addition to Org.
We can debate how easy or hard this is to implement indefinitely. What
is needed is for someone to implement a working version which is
consistent, reliable and provides expected results across all export
The devil is in the details and I suspect that once you start trying to
implement the feature is when many of those challenges become clear.
My view is 'go for it'. Just create a new feature branch and implment
the functionality in that branch. We can then try using it and see where
it works and where it doesn't. Once this is done, a call can be made as
to whether it should be implemented in the main code base
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-19 3:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-17 20:29 Atlas Cove
2021-03-17 21:02 ` Daniele Nicolodi
2021-03-17 22:07 ` Juan Manuel Macías
2021-03-18 13:38 ` Atlas Cove
2021-03-18 14:04 ` Daniele Nicolodi
2021-03-18 15:15 ` Juan Manuel Macías
2021-03-18 14:19 ` Maxim Nikulin
2021-03-18 14:26 ` Timothy
2021-03-18 14:31 ` Atlas Cove
2021-03-18 21:58 ` Tim Cross
2021-03-18 22:41 ` Juan Manuel Macías
2021-03-19 8:08 ` tomas
2021-03-19 8:44 ` Juan Manuel Macías
2021-03-19 8:53 ` tomas
2021-03-19 9:22 ` Juan Manuel Macías
2021-03-19 10:14 ` tomas
2021-03-19 10:53 ` Juan Manuel Macías
2021-03-19 11:08 ` Juan Manuel Macías
2021-03-19 13:43 ` tomas
2021-03-19 15:07 ` Juan Manuel Macías
2021-03-20 22:49 ` Samuel Wales
2021-03-21 8:43 ` Juan Manuel Macías
2021-03-19 2:27 ` Timothy
2021-03-19 3:50 ` Tim Cross [this message]
2021-03-19 4:02 ` Timothy
2021-03-19 13:33 ` Eric S Fraga
2021-03-19 21:33 ` Tim Cross
2021-03-20 9:19 ` Eric S Fraga
2021-03-20 10:40 ` Juan Manuel Macías
2021-03-20 13:41 ` Andreas Eder
2021-03-20 22:06 ` Tim Cross
2021-03-22 10:54 ` Eric S Fraga
2021-04-01 6:15 ` Tom Gillespie
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
List information: https://www.orgmode.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
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).