Re: [ANN] Merge of new export framework on Wednesday

[Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaziou@gmail.com>]

Hello,

"Sean O'Halpin" <sean.ohalpin@gmail.com> writes:

> This raises another question which is more about Org document export
> headers in general: why do we have specific document headers for LaTeX
> and HTML? Because we need to able to insert raw markup at specific
> points in the exported document. (We also have =html-preamble= and
> =html-postamble= which act on every document.) But what about other
> exporter back-ends? Say we get a native org to docbook exporter. What
> would be the mechanism for inserting markup into the =<artheader>=?
> Would there be a =#+DOCBOOK_HEADER=?
>
> Please forgive my meandering here. It's just struck me that we might
> need a more general mechanism for document-level export directives
> that will avoid multiplying the number of =#+HTML_= style directives
> we already have. Perhaps something along the lines of:
>
>
> #+BEGIN_SRC ORG
> ,#+EXPORT html head <style .../>
> ,#+EXPORT latex header \usepackage{xyz}
> #+END_SRC
>
>
> where =head= and =header= represent specific places in the exported
> document that the exporter in question has defined as places you can
> insert raw markup. So, Org would define the =#+EXPORT= protocol,
> specific back-ends would define the names and places.

Not every back-end has a concept of "head" (think about Markdown
back-end). We don't need a general concept for something that isn't
general.

Also, completely unifying every back-end is close to impossible, unless
the same person writes every back-end[1]. Most of the options are
shared, that's the goal of ox.el, but in the end, each back-end decides
how it handles the others.


Regards,

[1] Even then, back-ends are so different that it would ultimately fail,
anyway.

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou