Re: [O] New exporter and dates in tables

[Carsten Dominik]

On 8 apr. 2013, at 21:49, Nicolas Goaziou <address@hidden> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> Carsten Dominik <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>> On 8 apr. 2013, at 13:27, Bernt Hansen <address@hidden> wrote:
>> 
>>> Nicolas Goaziou <address@hidden> writes:
>>> 
>>>> Bernt Hansen <address@hidden> writes:
>>>> 
>>>>> I have subtrees with inactive timestamps in the text indicating when
>>>>> something occurred.  I normally don't want to export these.  But I think
>>>>> any table data that includes inactive timestamps should be an exception
>>>>> to this ... otherwise you get output tables with blank cells where the
>>>>> meaningful timestamp data would be.
>>>> 
>>>> I understand.
>>>> 
>>>> So what exactly should be this exception? Should export ignore <:nil
>>>> option in a whole table, or only when a table cell contains a single
>>>> timestamp? IOW, how would it behaves in the following table:
>>>> 
>>>> | [2013-04-04 Thu] | Lunch at [2013-04-04 Thu] ] |
>>>> 
>>>> when `org-export-with-timestamps' is either nil or `active'?
>>> 
>>> I think keeping it simple is best.  If there is an inactive timestamp in
>>> a table then it should be exported (I consider everything in a table as
>>> data).
>> 
>> 
>> I think this is the right way to look at this.
> 
> I still find it surprising that <:nil will remove the timestamp in:
> 
>  Lunch at [2013-04-04 Thu]
> 
> but not in
> 
>  | Lunch at [2013-04-04 Thu] |
> 
> I suppose I'll eventually get it.

Yes, I agree that it is hard to nail the exact reasons. The
reasoning for me goes like this:

Some people throw in time stamps often while they work, just
as a little label, indicating that they were working on this
at a specific date, or that the entry was created on a specific
date.  Many people I know have a hook that throws in such a
time stamp in each new entry created.  This creates a lot of
clutter when you print it, which is why you can turn off
export of timestamps.

That option was not meant for a contextual line like your
first example.  If you use the time stamps in this way, you
probably will not turn off timestamp export at all, you
will just leave it on.  If you mix both ways of using
time stamps - well, too bad.

Tabular data is different because you certainly wanted
that data in the table, so removing it will be confusing.

> Anyway, there's still another thing to ponder. Since everything in
> a table is data, what happens with "tex:nil" (LaTeX snippets)? Should
> this option also be ignored within a table? If not, how can we explain
> the difference with "<:nil"?

Tex macros are different.  This is an internal way of
inserting special characters, and that syntax may get into
your way in some specific projects.  Just like the fact
that _ creates a subscript.  If you have to write text
with lots of _ but you never mean a subscript, this can
be really annoying.  So you can turn off subscripts as you
can turn off interpretation of tex macros, as a convenience
if the syntax gets in your way.  Then it should be turned
off anywhere, table or not.

Regards

- Carsten


> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -- 
> Nicolas Goaziou