Re: [ANN] Merge of new export framework on Wednesday

[Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaziou@gmail.com>]

"Sean O'Halpin" <sean.ohalpin@gmail.com> writes:

> I haven't made myself clear. I'm not suggesting a general concept of
> "head". What I am suggesting is that the back-ends handle these
> back-end specific concepts themselves, rather than add more buffer
> keywords for every new exporter.

Each back-end adds its own keywords, define them, document them and
interpret them. So, basically, backends handle these concept themselves,
don't they?

> This would not require unifying every back-end at all. In fact, quite
> the opposite. All you would need would be for the generic exporter
> framework to provide the back-end a dictionary of key value pairs,
> such as ((:head "<script.../>") ...), which the back-end would
> interpret.

This is exactly what is happening.

> 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.


Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou