Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:
> Eric Abrahamsen <e...@ericabrahamsen.net> writes:
>
>> I think I ran into trouble just doing a simple `org-store-link' from an
>> Info file, then `org-insert-link' in the Org mode manual.
>>
>> That produced:
>>
>> [[info:org#Installation][info:org#Installation]] -->
>> @ref{Installation,@ref{Installation,,,org,},,org,} -->
>> *note *note (org)Installation::: (org)Installation.
>
> This bug was fixed months ago, when we removed support for nested links.
Bah, sorry. I'm on org-plus-contrib.
>> Why not just change the behavior of `org-export-headline-levels' for
>> texinfo output? We can already make plain lists, it doesn't seem useful
>> to me to also turn minor headings into lists. Since texinfo has the
>> concept of pages, why not just inline headings below H: level?
>
> We can certainly do that, but that doesn't solve the real problem. Such
> headings could be generated at any level. Conversely, you may want to
> have a deeper level in some section, so H:4 would be mandatory.
>
> Maybe UNNUMBERED property could imply a "not in TOC" clause in every
> back-end (I assume this is difficult to implement for LaTeX, though). In
> that case, UNNUMBERED would be a generic answer the problem.
>
> Or UNNUMBERED could imply "not in TOC" in "ox-texinfo.el", but that's
> less good, IMO.
Right, the headline-levels approach is not very graceful. I like
using UNNUMBERED, that seems conceptually correct.
>>> IMO, advanced marking is not needed, at least out of the box. For
>>> example, @kbd{M-@key{TAB}} in Texinfo is morally equivalent to
>>> ~M-<TAB>~ in Org, as long as the document targets info.
>>
>> Morally equivalent in that they're typeset the same, right?
>
> Correct.
>
>> I decided to embrace texinfo pedantry and make a kbd macro :)
>
> I think it really matters if you're going to use the Texinfo file to
> produce other formats than "info" (e.g., you're writing a GNU manual).
> If that's only for the "info" part, ~M-<TAB>~ is infinitely more
> readable.
I don't think anything needs to be done here, it's just a matter of what
authors want.
>> I'd be happy to provide a patch, and I think we should mention
>> `org-texinfo-text-markup-alist', as well. Then we can say "here's how
>> Org's basic markup elements are translated, here's a defcustom you can
>> play with, and failing that you can also make a macro".
>
> Sounds good.
>
>> To be honest I don't know how the markup alist is supposed to work,
>> though. If I mark up a phrase /like so/, shouldn't that count as
>> "italic", and get transformed into @emph{like so}?
>
> It should, and it does.
>
>> Right now it goes through unchanged into the Info file, which doesn't
>> seem right, since the Texinfo manual seems to indicate that _this_ is
>> the proper way to do emphasis.
>
> I cannot reproduce the problem.
I'll assume it's something version related, or local.
>> The other thing I'd like to expand is the "Plain lists in Texinfo
>> export" section. First of all, it's about definition lists, not plain
>> lists, which I found confusing. Also, I think it just needs to have more
>> basic information in it, unless you already know texinfo well, it's hard
>> to know what it's telling you.
>
> Agreed.
Great, I'll do this in the next couple of days.
Thanks,
Eric
