From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ulf Stegemann Subject: Re: [BUG] HTML exporting numbered literal examples Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 23:08:26 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87r5wg8lch.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87y6qn9xed.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MRufg-00066G-9w for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:08:48 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MRufb-00063l-Ll for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:08:47 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=60121 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MRufb-00063a-DD for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:08:43 -0400 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:35605 helo=ciao.gmane.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MRufZ-0001qU-Sx for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:08:42 -0400 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1MRufW-0003xB-AR for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:08:38 +0000 Received: from london.zeitform.net ([146.140.213.100]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:08:38 +0000 Received: from ulf-news by london.zeitform.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:08:38 +0000 List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Bastien wrote: > Ulf Stegemann 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