From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tsd@tsdye.com (Thomas S. Dye) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: \newpage in HTML export Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2014 09:50:10 -1000 Message-ID: References: <8738moubd4.fsf_-_@ericabrahamsen.net> <8738mo68fi.fsf@gmail.com> <3389069.jUrlGMUlNA@descartes> <87a9gu6t92.fsf@gmail.com> <87k3fym54f.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <87li0dvr4d.fsf@med.uni-goettingen.de> <87wqixhu66.fsf@gmail.com> <871u0pcbw0.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87mwjckgnf.fsf@med.uni-goettingen.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36066) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VzAlU-0002yS-Df for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Jan 2014 14:50:45 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VzAlO-0001Z6-M6 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Jan 2014 14:50:40 -0500 Received: from alt-proxy17.mail.unifiedlayer.com ([66.147.241.60]:46095) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VzAlO-0001Yx-E5 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Jan 2014 14:50:34 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87mwjckgnf.fsf@med.uni-goettingen.de> (Andreas Leha's message of "Fri, 03 Jan 2014 20:29:56 +0100") 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: Andreas Leha Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Aloha Andreas, Andreas Leha writes: > Bastien writes: > >> Nicolas Goaziou writes: >> >>>> So in short: If page breaks are not in org directly many people will >>>> end up with inferior and/or less portable org files. >>> >>> For the record, after thinking about it, I'd rather stay away from >>> invisible characters in Org syntax, would it be page breaks or >>> non-breaking spaces. >> >> FWIW I fully support not using invisible chars in Org syntax. > > This follows up on just a side aspect in this thread that is (partly) > separate from its subject. > > > Just to wrap the thread up in my words: > > 1. Cross-backend (or more cross-backend) support of \newpage built into > Org directly was disapproved in favor of a less portable filter based > solution [fn:1]. Could you expand on what you mean by "less portable"? I'm interested in portability from a reproducible research perspective and want to avoid habits that don't port well to other researchers' systems. Happy New Year! -- Thomas S. Dye http://www.tsdye.com