Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> Hello,
>
> François Pinard writes:
>
> > When some feature is being deprecated, the Org manual should tell us,
> > then ! :-) And at least where that feature is documented. Currently,
> > the manual says:
> >
> > The preferred match for a text link is a dedicated ta
Hi all,
Eric S Fraga writes:
> But maybe I also am confused as to the current direction this is
> taking...
let me try to summarize and clarify. Nicolas said it clearly:
At the moment, "<>" and "# <>" produce, respectively,
"tag" and "".
Nothing is deprecated _yet_ and there is no need
Nicolas Goaziou writes:
> This is correct. I was just pointing out (though, admittedly, not very
> clearly) that the final part of the next sentence in the manual,
> "sometimes it is convenient to put them into a comment line", isn't.
It might be worth making the manual clear, so users know what
Nicolas Goaziou writes:
[...]
> On the other hand, every regular target will be invisible. Let me
> explain.
>
> At the moment, "<>" and "# <>" produce, respectively, " name="tag" id="tag">tag" and "".
>
> In a not so distant future "<>" will produce " id="tag">" and "# <>" will be ignored.
And
Hello,
François Pinard writes:
> When some feature is being deprecated, the Org manual should tell us,
> then ! :-) And at least where that feature is documented. Currently,
> the manual says:
>
> The preferred match for a text link is a dedicated target: the same
> string in double angular
l use that construct extensively and look forward to the clarification.
Yours,
Christian
---
Sent from mobile.
Please excuse my brevity.
Nick Dokos writes:
> Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> François Pinard writes:
>>
>> > I'm not sure I'm using "# <>" correctly, but my feeling is that it
>> > should stick to the following text in various Org operations. Let's say
>> > I have something like (as I think it):
>>
>> "#
François Pinard writes:
> Nicolas Goaziou writes:
>> I suggest to avoid bothering with it.
> I hope the letter I wrote at the beginning of this little thread is
> not going to be dismissed or ignored.
Well, my original message accidentally left my machine before it was
finished. I completed i
Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> Hello,
>
> François Pinard writes:
>
> > I'm not sure I'm using "# <>" correctly, but my feeling is that it
> > should stick to the following text in various Org operations. Let's say
> > I have something like (as I think it):
>
> "# <>" is a deprecated construct. I
Nicolas Goaziou writes:
> "# <>" is a deprecated construct.
Sigh! I just spent a few hours adding many of those and making sure
everything is regular.
When some feature is being deprecated, the Org manual should tell us,
then ! :-) And at least where that feature is documented. Currently,
the
Hello,
François Pinard writes:
> I'm not sure I'm using "# <>" correctly, but my feeling is that it
> should stick to the following text in various Org operations. Let's say
> I have something like (as I think it):
"# <>" is a deprecated construct. I suggest to avoid bothering with
it.
Regar
Hi, Org people.
I'm not sure I'm using "# <>" correctly, but my feeling is that it
should stick to the following text in various Org operations. Let's say
I have something like (as I think it):
--8<---cut here---start->8---
* Some container
# <>
* Title 1
12 matches
Mail list logo
