On 9/10/12 4:45 PM, "Jambunathan K" <kjambunat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Richard Stanton <stan...@haas.berkeley.edu> writes: > >> On 9/10/12 4:31 PM, "Jambunathan K" <kjambunat...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>>> From: nicholas.do...@hp.com [mailto:nicholas.do...@hp.com] >>>>> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 2:37 PM >>>>> >>>>> > #+OPTIONS: h:2, toc:nil >>>>> > >>>>> > * Example of itemized list >>>>> > ** Blank level 2 header >>>>> > - List 1 >>>>> > - List 2 >>>>> > - List 3 >>>>> > >>>>> > * Level 3 headings as itemized list, with extra space >>>>> > ** Blank level 2 header >>>>> > *** List 1 >>>>> > *** List 2 >>>>> > *** List 3 >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> The old exporter does that: it breaks the second up into three lists, >>>>>each with >>>>> a single element. The first is a single list with three elements. >>>>> >>>>> The new exporter produces a single list with three elements, although >>>>>it >>>>> includes the section number for each entry - this might be a bug. >>>>> >>>>> Nick >>>> >>>> I also get the section number included as part of the list item >>>> text. This does look like a bug. >>>> >>>> When I use the new exporter to export to LaTeX/PDF, I get no section >>>> numbers, but I get a numbered, rather than itemized, list. This also >>>> seems like a (different) bug. >>> >>>I have pushed a fix to org-e-html.el. >>> >>>The depth of numbering is according to the value of num:N spec. Use >>> num:2 instead of num:t >>> >>>to get the numbering behaviour you desire. >>> >>>If something is not according to taste, point me to the markup that is >>>missing or which needs to be removed (instead of describing it in >>>English) >>> >>>> Richard >>>> >>>> >>> >>>-- >> >> Thanks. I'll try the new version. >> >> Meanwhile, as I understand it (and as implemented in the old exporter), >> h:2 should mean that only two levels of section headings should be >>created >> at all. Level 3 should be an itemized list (and therefore, implicitly, >> should not have a number). Thus, h:2 should imply n:2, I believe. > >New exporter is, hmmm, new. > >You can still get the old behaviour. So, that leaves us with no scope >for complaining. > >I am merely following what Ngz has advised us. The HTML and LaTeX/PDF behavior are now the same, and I can see why the new behavior is better than the old, since it allows more options, so I'll stop complaining. For a while, anyway... Thanks.
