Bastien <b...@altern.org> wrote: > Here is a list of difficulties: > > 1. the syntax of the backends vary, and this means that all Org options > are not meaningful in all target formats; > > *Example*: #+XSLT is only meaninful for the Docbook export. The > variable `org-export-html-postamble' is only meaningful for the HTML > export. Etc. > > 2. exporters use various methods to export the file (e.g. the HTML > exporter goes line by line, the LaTeX exporter parses the file and > render each section); > > *Example*: users often ask why the LaTeX exporter cannot export a > headline of level 3 right after a headline of level 1: they ask that > because the HTML exporter can do this, while the LaTeX one cannot. > And the LaTeX one cannot because parsing an ill-structured Org buffer > is tricky for it. > > 3. exporters are maintained by various people: I know the HTML exporter > and the LaTeX one, others know the other exporters, etc. > > I need your help do deal with these issues. > > The first thing to do is to have a list of annoying inconsistencies that > need to be addressed in priority. > > The second thing would be to build a table (somewhere on Worg?) with the > list of options and the way they are taken care by each exporter. Such > a "synoptic view" would help developers know what they can work on, and > users know what they have to expect from options. On the long term, it > would also help make the documentation clearer about all these aspects. > > This will at least help with the first difficulty -- and motivate all > people working on the exporters to address the second one. The third > one can be turned into a *chance*: that of having several people working > in the same direction. >
Excellent plan! If nobody beats me to it, I'll send out an initial draft of such a table to the list for comment over the weekend: not a complete thing, mind you - just something partially covering one or two exporters. We can modify it as necessary and then proceed to populate it over the next few weeks. Nick PS: > So, bare with me on this :) > I'm sorry to be so sophomoric about this, but the image that popped into my mind was a bunch of org developers dropping their pants and mooning the world. Bastien, I will have to undergo years of therapy for this: I'll send you the bill :-) > PS: Also note that I couldn't be as available as I wanted the 10 last > days due to personal problems, but things look better now. > I think I'm speaking for all of us: Nothing here is so urgent that it cannot wait for a few days or a few weeks or a few months. If something absolutely *needs* to be done *today* (I can't think of anything that would be this urgent, but let us say that there is something), and you cannot get to it, let the list know: we'll either know to wait or somebody will up and do it. So you do what you need to do when you need to do it: org can take care of itself for a while without much supervision. And you are not alone.
