From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Goaziou Subject: Re: feature request: best practices for speaker notes and incremental lists/elements Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 13:54:12 +0200 Message-ID: <87h9lgcwij.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> References: <87ziz8zdyh.fsf@gmx.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45605) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZpxN8-0003lT-IY for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Oct 2015 07:52:31 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZpxN7-0004sY-Il for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Oct 2015 07:52:30 -0400 Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([2001:4b98:c:538::195]:40867) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZpxN7-0004sO-Cx for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Oct 2015 07:52:29 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87ziz8zdyh.fsf@gmx.us> (rasmus@gmx.us's message of "Sat, 24 Oct 2015 13:46:30 +0200") 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: Rasmus Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hello, Rasmus writes: > Matt Price writes: > >> I think the two exporters should use the same syntax! I especially think >> that any future exporters should use a single, unified syntax, and that >> the older exporters should eventualyl be changed to support that new >> syntax. And finally, I think the new syntax should be as simple as >> humanly possible. So I'd like to suggest that the community decide on >> the best way forward. > > We can try to make a common syntax across our exporter, namely ox-desk, > ox-beamer and ox-s5 to the extend that these support "speaker notes". A > "pull request" can then be made to ox-reveal.el, which AFAIK is neither > part of lisp or contrib/lisp. Note that "common syntax" probably means less features (i.e., we are limited to common features). As suggested, I think, it seems better to create a generic export back-end from scratch, which would allow to select a target (e.g., beamer, reveal.js...), than altering current back-ends and enter backward-compatibility's hell. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou