Carsten Dominik <carsten.domi...@gmail.com> writes: > On 15.10.2011, at 16:14, Eric S Fraga wrote: > >> Carsten Dominik <carsten.domi...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On 14.10.2011, at 13:31, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>> >>>> I have nothing against (1) as item bullets, as it doesn't interfere >>>> with any existing Org syntax. >>> >>> That is not the only criterion. Adding new syntax elements make more >>> ASCII sequences special. The Org markup is a heuristic set of >>> special elements, and there is merrit in keeping it small. We already >>> have more bullets and in particular numbered types - and so far >>> I have not seen a compelling reason to add more. >>> >>> - Carsten >> >> I am in the "keep it simple school". So long as org allows me to >> distinguish between numbered and unnumbered itemised lists, I am >> happy. I actually would prefer less choices than there are currently >> because I would like to get to my choice more quickly when I do use >> C-c - to change the type! >> >> To me, org is about information and time management, not about >> formatting. YMMV, of course! >> >> To be blunt, I would be happy with "-" and "1." in org, knowing that I >> can customise upon export if necessary! I'm not suggesting we go this >> far, however ;-) > > Since backward compatibility is necessary, this counts as a vote for a > customizable sequence, as proposed by Nicolas, do I see this right? > > So maybe this *is* a good idea, but I would be agains adding new list > types.
I guess I was voting without realising that I was ;-) I'm happy with things as they are but definitely would have no problem with a customisable list, one that I would tend to shorten! -- : Eric S Fraga (GnuPG: 0xC89193D8FFFCF67D) in Emacs 24.0.90.1 : using Org-mode version 7.7 (release_7.7.381.g05ea)
