Re: feature request: best practices for speaker notes and incremental lists/elements

[Matt Price <moptop99@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1460 bytes --]

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Rasmus <rasmus@gmx.us> writes:
>
> > Matt Price <moptop99@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> I think the two exporters should use the same syntax! I especially think
> >> that any future exporters should use a single, unified syntax, and that
> >> the older exporters should eventualyl be changed to support that new
> >> syntax.  And finally, I think the new syntax should be as simple as
> >> humanly possible.  So I'd like to suggest that the community decide on
> >> the best way forward.
> >
> > We can try to make a common syntax across our exporter, namely ox-desk,
> > ox-beamer and ox-s5 to the extend that these support "speaker notes".  A
> > "pull request" can then be made to ox-reveal.el, which AFAIK is neither
> > part of lisp or contrib/lisp.
>
> Note that "common syntax" probably means less features (i.e., we are
> limited to common features).
>

Yes, certainly -- there would doubtless still be a need for some
backend-specific hacks, just not as many as we currently have.

>
> As suggested, I think, it seems better to create a generic export
> back-end from scratch, which would allow to select a target (e.g.,
> beamer, reveal.js...), than altering current back-ends and enter
> backward-compatibility's hell.
>

That does sound like a good idea. Can I ask, what syntactical structures
seem best to you?



> Regards,
>
> --
> Nicolas Goaziou
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2422 bytes --]