"Sean O'Halpin" <sean.ohal...@gmail.com> writes: > I haven't made myself clear. I'm not suggesting a general concept of > "head". What I am suggesting is that the back-ends handle these > back-end specific concepts themselves, rather than add more buffer > keywords for every new exporter.
Each back-end adds its own keywords, define them, document them and interpret them. So, basically, backends handle these concept themselves, don't they? > This would not require unifying every back-end at all. In fact, quite > the opposite. All you would need would be for the generic exporter > framework to provide the back-end a dictionary of key value pairs, > such as ((:head "<script.../>") ...), which the back-end would > interpret. This is exactly what is happening. > You would avoid having to add document level keywords such as > HTML_STYLE and MAN_CLASS_OPTIONS for new exporters. It would be the > back-end's responsibility to validate and document these options. My > suggestion is really not so different from what the new exporter does > anyway. Where we now have =#+HTML_LINK_UP: "..."=, I'm suggesting we > have =#+EXPORT: html link-up "..."=. Honestly, besides the syntax, I don't see any difference. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou
