Zachary Kanfer <zkan...@gmail.com> writes:
> Sure, I'm generally interested in making this useful. Weird that it claims to > be part of org, but isn't. > > I do think it would be useful to have a minimalist html exporter in org, > whether slimhtml or some other one. The built-in html > exporter is rather opinionated. > I tend to agree. Although this would be difficult to achieve now because of the impact it would have on end users, I think the best architecture for org would be for ALL exporters to be basic 'no thrills' exporters and more advanced, opinionated or specialised exporters provided as external ELPA or NONGNUE ELPA add ons which are not part of the core architecture. Org maintenance could then just focus on core functionality and an API which make implementing extensions/add-ons easier. I also agree with Bastien that adding a second HTML exporter as part of the core is likely to lead to confusion and additional maintenance. Probably what is needed is a new HTML exporter which is capable of doing what slimhtml does as the default, but includes the additional functionality already in the exporter which many people are using. Getting this right is definitely a non-trivial problem.
