From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Goaziou Subject: Re: Ordered List (Alphabetical) and HTML Export Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 13:49:43 +0200 Message-ID: <87wqpaqz3c.fsf@gmail.com> References: <51a7a129.901a420a.1422.197b@mx.google.com> <87sizzp6j4.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <871u7isjjr.fsf@gmail.com> <8738rymvrk.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49691) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Utcbv-0008HK-PG for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Jul 2013 07:49:37 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Utcbs-0008LD-HS for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Jul 2013 07:49:35 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-x22e.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::22e]:36234) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Utcbs-0008L4-A9 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Jul 2013 07:49:32 -0400 Received: by mail-wi0-f174.google.com with SMTP id k10so2953225wiv.13 for ; Mon, 01 Jul 2013 04:49:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <8738rymvrk.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> (Bastien's message of "Mon, 01 Jul 2013 12:15:11 +0200") 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: Bastien Cc: Josiah Schwab , emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Bastien 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