On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote:
> Hello, > > Rasmus <ras...@gmx.us> writes: > > > Matt Price <mopto...@gmail.com> writes: > > > >> I think the two exporters should use the same syntax! I especially think > >> that any future exporters should use a single, unified syntax, and that > >> the older exporters should eventualyl be changed to support that new > >> syntax. And finally, I think the new syntax should be as simple as > >> humanly possible. So I'd like to suggest that the community decide on > >> the best way forward. > > > > We can try to make a common syntax across our exporter, namely ox-desk, > > ox-beamer and ox-s5 to the extend that these support "speaker notes". A > > "pull request" can then be made to ox-reveal.el, which AFAIK is neither > > part of lisp or contrib/lisp. > > Note that "common syntax" probably means less features (i.e., we are > limited to common features). > Yes, certainly -- there would doubtless still be a need for some backend-specific hacks, just not as many as we currently have. > > As suggested, I think, it seems better to create a generic export > back-end from scratch, which would allow to select a target (e.g., > beamer, reveal.js...), than altering current back-ends and enter > backward-compatibility's hell. > That does sound like a good idea. Can I ask, what syntactical structures seem best to you? > Regards, > > -- > Nicolas Goaziou > >
