From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Goaziou Subject: Re: setting local variables Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2017 18:57:48 +0200 Message-ID: <874lsfaho3.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> References: <871sotiqld.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <87r2wsly88.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <877eykbpho.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <87wp5dmkm0.fsf@gmx.us> <87h8wh13tm.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <87y3psp5ne.fsf@gmx.us> <87mv68159v.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87h8wgov62.fsf@gmx.us> <87fuc0asaq.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87y3pr7pn2.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58207) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dpdeC-0007pI-Sh for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Sep 2017 12:57:54 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dpdeB-0006GG-U2 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Sep 2017 12:57:52 -0400 Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([2001:4b98:c:538::196]:45081) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dpdeB-0006FW-Mq for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Sep 2017 12:57:51 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87y3pr7pn2.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> (Eric Abrahamsen's message of "Wed, 06 Sep 2017 09:33:53 -0700") 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: Eric Abrahamsen Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Eric Abrahamsen writes: > I think I ran into trouble just doing a simple `org-store-link' from an > Info file, then `org-insert-link' in the Org mode manual. > > That produced: > > [[info:org#Installation][info:org#Installation]] --> > @ref{Installation,@ref{Installation,,,org,},,org,} --> > *note *note (org)Installation::: (org)Installation. This bug was fixed months ago, when we removed support for nested links. > Why not just change the behavior of `org-export-headline-levels' for > texinfo output? We can already make plain lists, it doesn't seem useful > to me to also turn minor headings into lists. Since texinfo has the > concept of pages, why not just inline headings below H: level? We can certainly do that, but that doesn't solve the real problem. Such headings could be generated at any level. Conversely, you may want to have a deeper level in some section, so H:4 would be mandatory. Maybe UNNUMBERED property could imply a "not in TOC" clause in every back-end (I assume this is difficult to implement for LaTeX, though). In that case, UNNUMBERED would be a generic answer the problem. Or UNNUMBERED could imply "not in TOC" in "ox-texinfo.el", but that's less good, IMO. >> IMO, advanced marking is not needed, at least out of the box. For >> example, @kbd{M-@key{TAB}} in Texinfo is morally equivalent to >> ~M-~ in Org, as long as the document targets info. > > Morally equivalent in that they're typeset the same, right? Correct. > I decided to embrace texinfo pedantry and make a kbd macro :) I think it really matters if you're going to use the Texinfo file to produce other formats than "info" (e.g., you're writing a GNU manual). If that's only for the "info" part, ~M-~ is infinitely more readable. > I'd be happy to provide a patch, and I think we should mention > `org-texinfo-text-markup-alist', as well. Then we can say "here's how > Org's basic markup elements are translated, here's a defcustom you can > play with, and failing that you can also make a macro". Sounds good. > To be honest I don't know how the markup alist is supposed to work, > though. If I mark up a phrase /like so/, shouldn't that count as > "italic", and get transformed into @emph{like so}? It should, and it does. > Right now it goes through unchanged into the Info file, which doesn't > seem right, since the Texinfo manual seems to indicate that _this_ is > the proper way to do emphasis. I cannot reproduce the problem. > The other thing I'd like to expand is the "Plain lists in Texinfo > export" section. First of all, it's about definition lists, not plain > lists, which I found confusing. Also, I think it just needs to have more > basic information in it, unless you already know texinfo well, it's hard > to know what it's telling you. Agreed. Regards,