From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?utf-8?B?U2HFoWEgSmFuacWha2E=?= Subject: Re: org-mode markup vs rst for general content Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 16:21:53 +0100 Message-ID: <874lz1nomm.fsf@atmarama.com> References: <87bmtahkvu.fsf@atmarama.com> <87variglbb.fsf@atmarama.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56305) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cmMMp-0004QA-Ic for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 10:22:08 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cmMMm-00009z-72 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 10:22:07 -0500 Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=43067 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cmMMm-00009h-0M for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 10:22:04 -0500 Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cmMMc-0005ML-Cu for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 16:21:54 +0100 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 Alan L Tyree writes: > I have also written in rst: it is a slightly richer language out of > the box with provisions for sidebars, cautions, etc, but unless you > really need those things, I would stick with org-mode. I find the > syntax of rst to be very fiddly. Most of the special effects can be > obtained with css in any case. Thank you. > Org-mode for nearly everything else, but if you need more, go on to > LaTeX. Thanks a lot! Yeah, I did some books in the past using LyX/LaTeX when I wanted high-quality output, so that option is always on here…in the meantime I just want something mroe easy for authoring and it looks that org-mode is good enough for such purpose… > This may be more than you wanted to know :-). Not at all. ;) Sincerely, Gour --