Hi Nicolas, Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:
> I don't understand this part. Currently, "manual.org" is exported as > "org.texi" per > > #+export_file_name: org.texi > > So we are getting the best of both worlds. Am I missing something? No, I was missing the "#+export_file_name: org.texi" part. >> Or org-manual.org, which seems more readable. > > I think "manual.org" is simpler, but I do not mind renaming it to > "org-manual.org". However, I find "org.org" silly. > > In any case, I let you decide the name before moving forward. I don't have a strong opinion on this. The rationale for using org.org (which, I agree, sounds a bit childish) is that this is the current convention for naming GNU manual is [package-name].[extension]. See emacs.texi, gnus.texi, calc.texi, etc. If using Org becomes popular, it makes sense to have emacs.org, gnus.org, calc.org but I find emacs-manual.org, gnus-manual.org calc-manual.org to be cumbersome. Ok, we're not there yet, I know :) But still: RMS recently raised the question on emacs-devel of whether using .rst for the GNU documentation would be better, so using .org for this purpose is not entirely hypothetical. What people think? Let's just collect votes on this. +1 for org.org -- Bastien
