From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alan L Tyree Subject: Re: org-mode markup vs rst for general content Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2017 09:28:19 +1100 Message-ID: <59c2a062-b939-7e24-063a-7568efe43a2a@gmail.com> References: <87bmtahkvu.fsf@atmarama.com> <87variglbb.fsf@atmarama.com> <87o9x9sdld.fsf@ucl.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56087) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cmT1N-0007gB-NP for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 17:28:26 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cmT1M-0003Ra-6E for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 17:28:25 -0500 Received: from mail-pf0-x230.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c00::230]:34472) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cmT1L-0003RB-VV for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 17:28:24 -0500 Received: by mail-pf0-x230.google.com with SMTP id v190so46711941pfb.1 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 14:28:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:8003:2537:5c00:4637:e6ff:fec4:57? ([2001:8003:2537:5c00:4637:e6ff:fec4:57]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id y184sm20442360pfg.86.2017.03.10.14.28.21 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 10 Mar 2017 14:28:22 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: 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" To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org On 11/03/17 07:32, Samuel Wales wrote: > On 3/10/17, Eric S Fraga wrote: >>> I would say Markdown if you are collaborating with someone not familiar >>> with Emacs. The Pandoc version will do a surprising amount. Org-mode >>> for nearly everything else, but if you need more, go on to LaTeX. >> Excellent summary. > the pandoc version of ...? org->markdown->pandoc->word? The opinion is mine (I don't want Eric embarrassed by my opinions!!). The pandoc version of Markdown is what I meant. And I definitely prefer org-mode, but the context was one of collaboration with someone who has never used Emacs. I had no hope of converting him from Word to Emacs/org-mode, but he was happy with Markdown. The text was simply enough that none of the complexities that you mention below arose. Also, on export to Word: my export path actually was org -> LaTeX -> LibreOffice. The last step uses a special script that is part of the tex4ht (I even got the name wrong before) package: oolatex. For some reason, the Debian Jessie package does not install oolatex on the PATH. On my system it is installed at /usr/share/tex4ht/oolatex. oolatex will pause periodically, at least on a long manuscript. Restart by typing 'x'. Cheers, Alan > > i think a major feature would be working with internal links. so > you'd export a subtree, and links to locations in the subtree would be > supported. does markdown do that? > > also, org-export-with-tasks can't be supported by pandoc, because > presumably it doesn't go off and inspect your .emacs, but can it > support the properties drawer equivalent? > -- Alan L Tyree http://www2.austlii.edu.au/~alan Tel: 04 2748 6206 sip:typhoon@iptel.org