Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaz...@gmail.com> writes: >>> Let's think about it. If user has a non-nil >>> `org-list-allow-alphabetical' and don't use them, should we make sure >>> that items are _never_ alphabetical in the output (i.e. always numbers)? >> >> Clearly no. > > Interesting. As you know, pdflatex will produce, at some levels, alpha > bullets for ordered lists, unless told otherwise. So, > > a. Item exported to 1. Item > > is wrong (hence your patch), but > > 1. Item exported to (a) Item > > isn't wrong (according to your answer). I just cannot make sense out of > it. Either Org controls totally its output (my head hurts just thinking > about it) or it doesn't. Your patch stands in-between: it's confusing.
Maybe I misunderstand your question. If a user has (setq org-list-allow-alphabetical t) but don't use alphabetical lists, I don't see where is the problem. > The only promise wrt bullet type and export is: export will preserve > `ordered', `unordered' and `description' status of plain lists. That's > all. Supporting this "simple" thing already requires hundreds lines of > code in some export back-ends. I know. But speaking of structure vs. appearance: ODT has no notion of descriptive lists, this is just a visual emulation of it. So the choice of limiting the syntax to `ordered', `unordered', `description' is fine to me, but has some arbitrary ground too. > Currently, in Org syntax, "a) b) c)" is an alias for "ordered list", as > "1) 2) 3)". > >> I would perfectly understand that it's too much maintainance ahead. >> This sounds perfectly reasonable to me -- and (perhaps paradoxically) >> less arbitrary than "this does not fit Org's function, this is only >> aesthetic." > > OK. Count me in the "too much maintenance ahead", then. Fair enough. >> Alphabetical lists are aesthetic sugar both in Org and its outputs, > > I do not agree with "and its outputs" part, since there was nothing in > this direction before your patch. I was speaking of alphabetical lists in general: they are aesthetic sugar in HTML as well (i.e. there is no <aol> tag for "alphabetical ordered list".) >> and Org is nice because it tries to keep the input and output both >> structurally and aesthetically similar. > > Does it? In Beamer back-end, a block is very different, visually > speaking, from a headline. It does where it can. -- Bastien
