From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bastien Subject: Re: Ordered List (Alphabetical) and HTML Export Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 16:32:17 +0200 Message-ID: <87y59qwdu6.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> References: <51a7a129.901a420a.1422.197b@mx.google.com> <87sizzp6j4.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <871u7isjjr.fsf@gmail.com> <8738rymvrk.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87wqpaqz3c.fsf@gmail.com> <87hageh243.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87mwq6qtjk.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50602) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Utf9T-0006er-1t for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Jul 2013 10:32:32 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Utf9R-0002Pq-Lo for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Jul 2013 10:32:22 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-x232.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::232]:47873) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Utf9R-0002Pb-7H for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Jul 2013 10:32:21 -0400 Received: by mail-wi0-f178.google.com with SMTP id k10so3135319wiv.17 for ; Mon, 01 Jul 2013 07:32:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87mwq6qtjk.fsf@gmail.com> (Nicolas Goaziou's message of "Mon, 01 Jul 2013 15:49:35 +0200") 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: Nicolas Goaziou Cc: Josiah Schwab , emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Nicolas Goaziou 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 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