From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bastien Subject: Re: Org-mode version 5.13 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 23:50:57 +0100 Message-ID: <87sl42227i.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> References: <877ili13ju.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <20071022223824.119eace4@newmanfamily.me.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ik5Av-0006u3-Vd for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:51:06 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ik5Au-0006t1-FE for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:51:05 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ik5At-0006sF-5f for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:51:04 -0400 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.174]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ik5Ar-0003Vh-GB for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:51:01 -0400 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id a2so29910ugf for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:50:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20071022223824.119eace4@newmanfamily.me.uk> (Mike Newman's message of "Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:38:24 +0100") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Mike Newman writes: > I think that class is the right thing here. We are saying that this is > a "table-of-contents" rather than this is the "table-of-contents". I > believe at present there is no mechanism to give more than one table of > contents, but someone, sometime might want tables of contents for > individual sections of a document. Fair enough. Let's say that "id" is okay for now (since the HTML exporter doesn't know how to export multiple tables of contents), but this might become "class" when needed. > This appears to be logical, but is in fact (I think) redundant. We can > specify the style to applied at different levels without using > class attributes. For example: > > div { background-color: lightgray} > div > div { background-color: peachpuff} > div > div > div { background-color: green} > > shows how different styling can be applied to level 1, level 2 and > level 3 (and above). So you suggest keeping the
tags, but stripping them out of their "class" attributes? > I think this has advantages (e.g. inheritance of unspecified > characteristics from higher levels) and leaves the class attribute > free to represent styling that is independent of the structure. Yes, I feel quite the same. -- Bastien