On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 11:24:09 +0200, Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaziou@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >>>>> Eric S Fraga writes:
> 
> > So you are saying, if I understand you correctly, that you cannot
> > have something like this:
> 
> > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- 
> > 1. some text
> >    - a nested list
> >    - with two items
> >    some more text for the first numbered item
> >    - another nested list - with two items
> > 2. the second outer list item 
> > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> > If so, why not? This would seem to be quite a likely and useful
> > scenario.
> 
> It would require a slightly different model with an added depth of
> complexity. To tell the truth, I had looked into this, but hadn't
> found a satisfying (clean) solution.

Okay.

> For example, how should Org handle indentation of such a line, or any
> line within the list? Should it "round" the indentation to the closest
> level of a sub-list? 

Good question!  I don't know the answer to this.

[...]

> Those questions are more rhetorical than anything else. My point is
> just that this kind of scenario, while certainly doable, would need
> more thought, and much more work to implement. Is it _that_ useful?

I think it would be useful but not having it is definitely not a show
stopper!  It has come up as an issue for me recently because I have
been managing the writing of a proposal with contributions from many
authors and some of those authors like having multiple lists within
other lists.  It was when exporting a draft of the whole document that
I realised that I was losing text, but I only noticed this because I
lost a whole section which was several pages long!

I think the key is not necessarily to support multiple sub-lists
within an item but to *ensure* that no text is lost in export.  I can
see at a glance possibly whether text is formatted correctly but I
cannot tell as easily that text has been lost in export.  When working
on a 30+ page document, this is crucial.  

From your previous message, it sounds like you have a fix for the lost
text issue; that would be the main improvement for my usage.

> > I do this all the time in latex and I was sure that I had done this
> > before in org. Is my recollection wrong? Was this not possible
> > before?
> 
> As far as I remember, LaTeX exporter has never been able to parse
> this, though the HTML one did.

That could very well be.

Thanks,
eric