Torrey I don't mind being insulted publicly and in this mailing list. I have weathered even better insults both on and off the list.
So you are welcome. Jambunathan K. tftor...@tftorrey.com (T.F. Torrey) writes: > Hello Jambunathan, > > I admire your energy and coding skill, but I wish you would stop > occupying our time with replies like this. Your tone is insulting, and > seems deliberately so, and none of this response is helpful to the > original thread. > > I won't reply to more of your posts like this, so if you don't get a > reply, know that it's because your message was insulting and off-topic. > I'm only sending this on the odd chance that you are not aware of what > you are doing, in which case this might be helpful to you. > > If you want to follow up to this message, I invite you to do so > off-list, where it might have been best for me to post this as well. > > Best regards, > Terry > > Jambunathan K <kjambunat...@gmail.com> writes: > >> 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. > > --
