From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Dokos Subject: Re: New exporter, beamer confusion Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 08:55:43 -0500 Message-ID: <9669.1360072543@alphaville> References: <20130204063905.GA23614@kuru.dyndns-at-home.com> <87wqun5037.fsf@gmail.com> <6207.1360048864@alphaville> Reply-To: nicholas.dokos@hp.com Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:35427) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U2j00-0002Zr-Ll for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Feb 2013 08:55:49 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U2izy-0005fg-Nb for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Feb 2013 08:55:48 -0500 Received: from g5t0009.atlanta.hp.com ([15.192.0.46]:46318) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U2izy-0005fT-DG for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Feb 2013 08:55:46 -0500 In-Reply-To: Message from James Harkins of "Tue, 05 Feb 2013 17:01:30 +0800." 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: jamshark70@dewdrop-world.net Cc: Nicolas Goaziou , emacs-orgmode@gnu.org James Harkins wrote: > ... > > I get the feeling here that the new beamer exporter was written > without a lot of real-world user requirements. Certainly, it's > understandable that HTML, LaTeX article-style and ODT exporters would > be more widely used and more important to get right first. For beamer, > though, I can't reconcile the announcement ("Even though the internals > are completely different, the new exporter mostly behaves like its > predecessor. There are only a few noticeable changes") with the fact > that the new beamer exporter is a rather different animal that > completely breaks compatibility with org files written for the old > exporter, and may actually require a complete redo of the org markup > for each file. > > I know my emacs-lisp chops are not up to the task of fixing what is > broken in the new beamer exporter. I can supply a couple dozen source > files, to help decide what level of backward compatibility is > feasible. I'm not sure how else I can help. > > At least, it would be good to clarify, with respect to the > announcement, if the new beamer exporter is intended to be reasonably > backward-compatible with the old (with not-too-intrusive tweaks). If > that was the intent, then it's not ready for release. Otherwise, I'd > be happy to help draw up an upgrade path for people like myself who > have developed workflows for the old exporter that will eventually not > be supported anymore. > > In the meantime, I must stick with the old exporter, though I'll keep > the discussion alive to hash out on the mailing list what needs to be > done to make the new one production-ready for me. > I'm sure Nicolas is up to his ears in prep work, but eventually I'm sure he or somebody else who knows more about it than I do, will comment. Just as a general precaution, I wouldn't rush to judgement based on my fumbling attempts: these were small experiments done without knowing anything about the new exporter to begin with. I hope that they did more good than harm, but it *is* just a hope on my part. Don't mistake them for authoritative information. Nick