From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Allen S. Rout" Subject: Re: Changing [X] by something else Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 08:23:27 -0500 Message-ID: References: <878vkdfemv.fsf@iro.umontreal.ca> <87sjikt1ls.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:55992) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RvqS6-00020j-C3 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 08:23:55 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RvqRz-0006yr-EY for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 08:23:50 -0500 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:50881) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RvqRy-0006yi-Vv for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 08:23:43 -0500 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RvqRt-0007i5-8n for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:23:37 +0100 Received: from n128-227-48-12.xlate.ufl.edu ([128.227.48.12]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:23:37 +0100 Received: from asr by n128-227-48-12.xlate.ufl.edu with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:23:37 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87sjikt1ls.fsf@gmail.com> 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: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org On 02/09/2012 11:26 AM, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > Hello, > > pinard@iro.umontreal.ca (François Pinard) writes: > >> I notice in org.el that [X] is hard-wired, while I would have liked the >> possibility of changing it by [✓] in my things, which I find both softer >> and cleaner. Could these ([ ], [-] and [X]) be turned into variables? >> The difficulty might be to recognize them properly, I guess. > I don't think that we should allow basic structural elements to > change. As you said, it will make Org documents less interoperable, but > also less _recognizable_. What would happen to Org if every user could > come up with its own syntax? Could we even talk about an "Org format" > anymore? M. Pinard may want to look into changing the way that glyph displays... If we were to define a font face which was used for checkboxes, he could then specify for that font an edited font which displays his desired checkmark in the character formerly knows as 'X'. - Allen S. Rout