From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bastien Subject: Re: Re: unnumbered subsections in latex export Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 08:59:26 +0100 Message-ID: <87bp11dk4h.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20110322051038.21655c80@kuru.homelinux.net> <80d3lj9wj6.fsf@somewhere.org> <20110322053134.669127e9@kuru.homelinux.net> <8999.1300804510@alphaville.dokosmarshall.org> <20110322160814.227fc53f@bhishma.homelinux.net> <27844.1300836065@alphaville.usa.hp.com> <8162r9hgxm.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=44088 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q2fT2-00047M-Gl for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 04:00:29 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2fT1-0000AR-FP for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 04:00:28 -0400 Received: from mail-fx0-f41.google.com ([209.85.161.41]:44054) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2fT1-0000AL-9s for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 04:00:27 -0400 Received: by fxm18 with SMTP id 18so9522487fxm.0 for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 01:00:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <8162r9hgxm.fsf@gmail.com> (Jambunathan K.'s message of "Wed, 23 Mar 2011 23:12:29 +0530") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Jambunathan K Cc: nicholas.dokos@hp.com, emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Dear all, I applied the patches too hastily, disregarding some inconsistency they could introduce between exporters -- sorry for that. I fully agree with Nick and Thomas (and others who also agreed): Org's export facilities need some real love and new export features need to be introduced as complete and as consistent accross exporters as possible. I hope we'll make progress on this for 7.6. Here is a list of difficulties: 1. the syntax of the backends vary, and this means that all Org options are not meaningful in all target formats; *Example*: #+XSLT is only meaninful for the Docbook export. The variable `org-export-html-postamble' is only meaningful for the HTML export. Etc. 2. exporters use various methods to export the file (e.g. the HTML exporter goes line by line, the LaTeX exporter parses the file and render each section); *Example*: users often ask why the LaTeX exporter cannot export a headline of level 3 right after a headline of level 1: they ask that because the HTML exporter can do this, while the LaTeX one cannot. And the LaTeX one cannot because parsing an ill-structured Org buffer is tricky for it. 3. exporters are maintained by various people: I know the HTML exporter and the LaTeX one, others know the other exporters, etc. I need your help do deal with these issues. The first thing to do is to have a list of annoying inconsistencies that need to be addressed in priority. The second thing would be to build a table (somewhere on Worg?) with the list of options and the way they are taken care by each exporter. Such a "synoptic view" would help developers know what they can work on, and users know what they have to expect from options. On the long term, it would also help make the documentation clearer about all these aspects. This will at least help with the first difficulty -- and motivate all people working on the exporters to address the second one. The third one can be turned into a *chance*: that of having several people working in the same direction. So, bare with me on this :) PS: Also note that I couldn't be as available as I wanted the 10 last days due to personal problems, but things look better now. -- Bastien