Re: Ordered List (Alphabetical) and HTML Export

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

Bastien <bzg@altern.org> writes:

> Given that Org allows alphabetical list, the OP question is
> natural and will come back.

Of course it will. And it had been discussed when the feature was
introduced. I don't mind discussing it again, but there's nothing new on
the table. I thought it had a FAQ entry: I was wrong.

> There is no clue in Org that alphabetical lists are just visual clues.

The manual is one clue. Quoting section "2.7 Plain lists"

   Org knows ordered lists, unordered lists, and description lists.
   * _Unordered_ list items start with '-', '+', or '*'(1) as bullets.
   * _Ordered_ list items start with a numeral followed by either a
     period or a right parenthesis(2), such as '1.' or '1)'(3).  If you
     want a list to start with a different value (e.g., 20), start the
     text of the item with '[@20]'(4).  Those constructs can be used in
     any item of the list in order to enforce a particular numbering.
   * _Description_ list items are unordered list items, and contain the
     separator ' :: ' to distinguish the description _term_ from the
     description.

"Alphabetical list" is only a footnote in this paragraph and clearly not
a type on its own. Merely a convenience.

> I see no harm in supporting more flexibility where we can.

Only where it makes sense: this is not Org's job to replace CSS. Org is
about structure, not appearance.

Also, I do see harm. Introducing a "feature" in one major back-end means
updating other major back-ends, for the sake of consistency. LaTeX (as
in "pdflatex") already does a good job to produce item markers. It is
also configurable. Enforcing it is almost certainly a bad idea anyway.

Let's think about it. If user has a non-nil
`org-list-allow-alphabetical' and don't use them, should we make sure
that items are _never_ alphabetical in the output (i.e. always numbers)?
Also, what if users start asking for roman numbers as item markers?
Greek letters? Of course, Org doesn't provide them in the buffer, but
doesn't it sound silly to offer alphabetical lists only when so many
other types are supported by the targeted languages? Shouldn't back-ends
do the extra step in that direction?

We must draw a clear line between what Org should and shouldn't do. IMO,
this patch is on the wrong side of the line.

> Let me know what you think,

I think the same as I did way back when we introduced this. I don't like
alphabetical lists and I don't think we should offer more support for
them. I would be happier if there was less possible bullets in Org
syntax. This probably won't happen, but I see no reason to make the
situation worse.


Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou