Matt Lundin <m...@imapmail.org> writes:
> Eric S Fraga <e.fr...@ucl.ac.uk> writes:
>
>> Jambunathan K <kjambunat...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> I think one of the reasons Org is so popular it is that it is a
>>> common-man's swiss army knife and not a elitist samurai sword.
>>
>> And I think this is a very important analogy. Org does a good job for
>> many (very different) tasks. The price is that it does not necessarily
>> do some of those tasks as well as could be.
>>
>> I am happy to put with the rough edges exposed by the exporters because
>> of what the whole package provides. Case in point: I submitted a paper
>> yesterday which I wrote in org. However, for the submission, once I was
>> happy with all the content, I had to tweak the latex to meet the
>> journal's format because they provide a style file which requires title,
>> author, etc. to come *after* the \begin{document}.
>
> I agree that the org-exporter currently does its job very well. The
> astounding utility of org-mode is ample proof of the value of releasing
> early; even if the exporter is not as elegant as a modern compiler, it
> works. :)
>
> That said, I very much support Nicolas' proposal.
A quick (prototype) exporter demoing Nicolas's proposal could be
developed by using my new org-html.el in under few hours.
Think of it this way: If something could be XML-ified it could be
lispified. My exporter already has a common core that emits html and odt
and it is a matter of altering few callbacks so that it generates a
lispy list instead of XML.
> Best,
> Matt
