From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Abrahamsen Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: \newpage in HTML export Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 18:05:52 +0700 Message-ID: <87k3fym54f.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> References: <8738moubd4.fsf_-_@ericabrahamsen.net> <8738mo68fi.fsf@gmail.com> <3389069.jUrlGMUlNA@descartes> <87a9gu6t92.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57158) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VkYWq-0004EV-GM for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 07:11:14 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VkYWk-0006M1-G3 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 07:11:08 -0500 Received: from mail-pb0-f41.google.com ([209.85.160.41]:45913) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VkYWk-0006Lx-9j for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 07:11:02 -0500 Received: by mail-pb0-f41.google.com with SMTP id jt11so3893125pbb.14 for ; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 04:11:01 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87a9gu6t92.fsf@gmail.com> (Nicolas Goaziou's message of "Sun, 24 Nov 2013 10:31:21 +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: Nicolas Goaziou Cc: =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=BCdiger?= Sonderfeld , emacs-orgmode@gnu.org On 11/24/13 16:31 PM, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > Hello, > > R=C3=BCdiger Sonderfeld writes: > >> On Friday 22 November 2013 11:24:17 Nicolas Goaziou wrote: >>> Anyway, I don't think this is a good idea to introduce a new syntax just >>> to avoid a one-liner (or a hook, see below). Also, this would only make >>> sense in few export back-ends. >> >> But is it really a new syntax or just support for an existing Emacs=20 >> convention? See (info "(emacs) Pages"). >> >> It seems like a feature which could be supported in many back-ends: LaTe= X,=20 >> ODT, HTML, Texinfo, Ascii, Org, (Groff), maybe even md with pandoc. > > I do not question this. > > My point is that introducing this new syntax would bring up nothing that > can already be achieved using filters or hooks. > > So, is this feature a must-have? Or would a filter template in Worg more > appropriate in this case? It's not that everyone is desperate to have this in org proper. Putting it into the code base vs making a hook: my guess is the number of LOC would be very nearly exactly the same, and there's literally no practical difference in the result. When "why" and "why not" are perfectly balanced, it may be better to do nothing. But I think it just *feels* right, because the page delimiter already seems like a first-class citizen in emacs. I'll admit it's also partially because it's a control character. Control character! Must be serious programming. I also like the thought of a new org user sticking one in their document, exporting, and finding that org does the right thing. At this point, I'm pretty much neutral buoyancy on the issue, though... Eric