From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Nicolas Richard" Subject: Re: [ANN] Merge of new export framework on Wednesday Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2013 21:55:50 +0100 Message-ID: <87hallurzd.fsf@yahoo.fr> References: <876229nrxf.fsf@gmail.com> <86d2wau54f.fsf@somewhere.org> <871ucpegkf.fsf@gmail.com> <87mwvdgw53.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:56092) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U4HSU-0006sp-Sj for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Feb 2013 15:55:40 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U4HST-00068R-CU for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Feb 2013 15:55:38 -0500 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:47811) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U4HST-00068N-5f for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Feb 2013 15:55:37 -0500 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1U4HSk-0004l1-Bl for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Feb 2013 21:55:54 +0100 Received: from geodiff-mac3.ulb.ac.be ([164.15.131.113]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 09 Feb 2013 21:55:54 +0100 Received: from theonewiththeevillook by geodiff-mac3.ulb.ac.be with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 09 Feb 2013 21:55:54 +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-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Nicolas Goaziou writes: > "Sean O'Halpin" writes: >> You would avoid having to add document level keywords such as >> HTML_STYLE and MAN_CLASS_OPTIONS for new exporters. It would be the >> back-end's responsibility to validate and document these options. My >> suggestion is really not so different from what the new exporter does >> anyway. Where we now have =#+HTML_LINK_UP: "..."=, I'm suggesting we >> have =#+EXPORT: html link-up "..."=. > > Honestly, besides the syntax, I don't see any difference. IIUC, the difference is that #+HTML_LINK_UP and friends are all direct children of the document in the former case, and in the latter case all exporter-related options are grouped. An intermediate solution would be to group all options specific to one backend in #+EXPORT_ (and in this case, there could be a generic #+EXPORT: that could be used by every backend). OTOH, most #+keywords statements are meant for the exporter (there are exceptions) anyway, so this might sound like premature or over-generalization. I didn't read the whole thread and do not actually export very often so might have completely missed the point. -- Nico.