Re: [O] Re: unnumbered subsections in latex export

[Nick Dokos]

Bastien <address@hidden> wrote:

> Here is a list of difficulties:
> 
> 1. the syntax of the backends vary, and this means that all Org options
>    are not meaningful in all target formats;
> 
>    *Example*: #+XSLT is only meaninful for the Docbook export.  The
>    variable `org-export-html-postamble' is only meaningful for the HTML
>    export.  Etc.
> 
> 2. exporters use various methods to export the file (e.g. the HTML
>    exporter goes line by line, the LaTeX exporter parses the file and
>    render each section);
> 
>    *Example*: users often ask why the LaTeX exporter cannot export a
>    headline of level 3 right after a headline of level 1: they ask that
>    because the HTML exporter can do this, while the LaTeX one cannot.
>    And the LaTeX one cannot because parsing an ill-structured Org buffer
>    is tricky for it.
> 
> 3. exporters are maintained by various people: I know the HTML exporter
>    and the LaTeX one, others know the other exporters, etc.
> 
> I need your help do deal with these issues.
> 
> The first thing to do is to have a list of annoying inconsistencies that
> need to be addressed in priority.
> 
> The second thing would be to build a table (somewhere on Worg?) with the
> list of options and the way they are taken care by each exporter.  Such
> a "synoptic view" would help developers know what they can work on, and
> users know what they have to expect from options.  On the long term, it
> would also help make the documentation clearer about all these aspects.
> 
> This will at least help with the first difficulty -- and motivate all
> people working on the exporters to address the second one.  The third
> one can be turned into a *chance*: that of having several people working
> in the same direction.
> 

Excellent plan!

If nobody beats me to it, I'll send out an initial draft of such a table
to the list for comment over the weekend: not a complete thing, mind
you - just something partially covering one or two exporters. We can modify
it as necessary and then proceed to populate it over the next few weeks.

Nick

PS:

> So, bare with me on this :)
> 
I'm sorry to be so sophomoric about this, but the image that popped into
my mind was a bunch of org developers dropping their pants and mooning
the world. Bastien, I will have to undergo years of therapy for this:
I'll send you the bill :-)

> PS: Also note that I couldn't be as available as I wanted the 10 last
> days due to personal problems, but things look better now.
> 

I think I'm speaking for all of us: Nothing here is so urgent that it
cannot wait for a few days or a few weeks or a few months. If something
absolutely *needs* to be done *today* (I can't think of anything that
would be this urgent, but let us say that there is something), and you
cannot get to it, let the list know: we'll either know to wait or
somebody will up and do it.

So you do what you need to do when you need to do it: org can take care
of itself for a while without much supervision. And you are not alone.