From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Davis Subject: Re: Getting checkboxes in HTML output? Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 11:56:50 -0500 Message-ID: <529E0D52.1070902@pfdstudio.com> References: <20131127154534.GA12765@pdavismbp15.iscinternal.com> <8738mhal2d.fsf@alphaville.bos.redhat.com> <20131127182059.GB12765@pdavismbp15.iscinternal.com> <20131128133329.GA28945@eyeBook> <87vbzc9rmj.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <86haawtdya.fsf@somewhere.org> <16f7d77c0769177de44354bcf25abb37@mail.rickster.com> <87A2DB5F-009B-4C8E-8058-D9A5DA78748B@gmail.com> <20131130140703.GA45985@eyeBook> <43B44636-263C-47D1-8853-55BFEFFCE576@gmail.com> <86k3fn1w2t.fsf@somewhere.org> <529CB77D.6050608@pfdstudio.com> <7a3389b5515c311fea184a81b5da11a0@mail.rickster.com> <86wqjmrm8a.fsf@somewhere.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54666) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VntOe-0005YQ-Pm for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 12:04:34 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VntOW-0004EN-Um for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 12:04:28 -0500 Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:46533) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VntOW-0004E9-Mz for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 12:04:20 -0500 In-Reply-To: <86wqjmrm8a.fsf@somewhere.org> 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: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org On 12/3/13, 10:24 AM, Sebastien Vauban wrote: > Rick Frankel, > > Rick Frankel wrote: >>> This is sort of close to using >>> [ ] for unchecked >>> [/] for partially checked >>> [X] for checked >>> >>> To my aging eyes, the check in U#9745 looks almost like a forward >>> slash. Certainly, though, this would be potentially confusing, >>> especially if no [X] boxes were present, so that only [ ] or [/] were >>> visible. >> Right. I am going to make this a configurable option in ox-html, >> although consensus is that trying to emulate the partial checkbox >> ([-]) w/ other unicode symbols is too confusing, so we will simply use >> an empty ballot box. > You mean no difference between unchecked and partially checked? If yes, this > is wrong IMO. > > I did not search for long, but there should be usable unicode characters. To > name a few: > > - U+25EB White square with vertical bisecting line > - U+25F1 White square with lower left quadrant I think Rick's proposal of treating partially completed checkboxes as empty is appropriate. It's kind of the graphical equivalent of the "floor" function. The problem is that we really need three symbols which clearly and unambiguously represent three states of completion: none, partial and full. Unicode doesn't seem to give us any triplets like that, and trying to kludge otherwise unrelated symbols is not going to be satisfactory. That said, one possibility that strikes me would be: U+25A1 White square U+25E7 Square with left half black U+25A0 Black square The drawback, as I see it, is that if only white squares or only black squares appear, they would simply look like some kind of stylish bullet characters. -pd -- Peter Davis The Tech Curmudgeon www.techcurmudgeon.com