Re: [BUG] HTML exporting numbered literal examples

[Ulf Stegemann <ulf-news@zeitform.de>]

Bastien <bastienguerry@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Ulf Stegemann <ulf-news@zeitform.de> writes:
>
>> I had a quick look at `org-export-number-lines' and the following seems
>> to work smoothly ...
>
> Thanks for the patch.  One problem though: now the first link (from the
> manuals example) looks like "sc" but there is no "sc" left in the source
> code.  This is a bit confusing, no?  So if we plan to make references to
> lines of code, it make sense to have either the line numbering or the
> labels (or both).  What do you think?

Right, I agree with your observation but I think I wouldn't with your
conclusion.  I don't think that this is a problem.  From the author's
point of view I think he/she knows what's going on since this is not the
default behaviour and the `-r' switch actually has to be added.  And
after all we are talking about links.  And as with any other link if the
link target is self-explanatory: fine, then I can use it as link name.  If
it is not, I should choose something less confusing for the reader.
Translated to the situation we have here this means: I can choose a
self-explanatory reference and use this or I can give the link a label
with a clear indication of what the link is about.

From the reader's point of view there's no confusion either because
he/she can always follow the link and see where this leads.

I absolutely second that confusing behaviour should be avoided whenever
possible but I don't think any confusion will occur here.

Ulf