Re: [O] [new exporter] [html] Tables of Contents

[Jambunathan K]

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.

address@hidden (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 <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> address@hidden (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.
>
>

--