tftor...@tftorrey.com (T.F. Torrey) writes:
>>> This gives a significant advantage in that authors can link to the
>>> various instances just by knowing their own usage. For instance, if
>>> they provided a top-level toc at the beginning of their book, and a
>>> deeper-level toc later on, they could link to each separately by id by
>>> knowing this plan.
>>
>> This seems like a valid use-case.
>>
>> I would recommend that you just specify just the use-case and leave out
>> the "how"s of implementation.
>>
>> Put your user hat and set aside the developer's hat.
>
> What a strange, semi-insulting thing to say.
There is nothing strange in what I said. I wasn't insulting.
> And misguided, too, as I was suggesting a design, not its
> implementation. As someone with all my own documents in Org and
> extensive experience developing XSLT and lisp to process the XHTML
> output of Org, I appreciate when the design of the HTML output is
> logical and useful.
When you were suggesting
#+toc: :a b :b c :c d
that is implementation specifics and you were arguing from a HTML
standpoint. If you were in fact designing, you would have articulated
your case for other backends and how your suggested changes would impact
ox.el.
> I would rather see a good design implemented in hacks than a poor design
> implemented in beautiful code.
If you have better ideas, show us the patch.
Otherwise, I suggest that you wear your user hat and place the use-case
before use while others can take care of the details.
