[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [O] setting local variables

From: Eric Abrahamsen
Subject: Re: [O] setting local variables
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2017 10:44:32 -0700
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Nicolas Goaziou <address@hidden> writes:

> Eric Abrahamsen <address@hidden> writes:
>> I think I ran into trouble just doing a simple `org-store-link' from an
>> Info file, then `org-insert-link' in the Org mode manual.
>> That produced:
>> [[info:org#Installation][info:org#Installation]] -->
>> @ref{Installation,@ref{Installation,,,org,},,org,} -->
>> *note *note (org)Installation::: (org)Installation.
> This bug was fixed months ago, when we removed support for nested links.

Bah, sorry. I'm on org-plus-contrib.

>> Why not just change the behavior of `org-export-headline-levels' for
>> texinfo output? We can already make plain lists, it doesn't seem useful
>> to me to also turn minor headings into lists. Since texinfo has the
>> concept of pages, why not just inline headings below H: level?
> We can certainly do that, but that doesn't solve the real problem. Such
> headings could be generated at any level. Conversely, you may want to
> have a deeper level in some section, so H:4 would be mandatory.
> Maybe UNNUMBERED property could imply a "not in TOC" clause in every
> back-end (I assume this is difficult to implement for LaTeX, though). In
> that case, UNNUMBERED would be a generic answer the problem.
> Or UNNUMBERED could imply "not in TOC" in "ox-texinfo.el", but that's
> less good, IMO.

Right, the headline-levels approach is not very graceful. I like
using UNNUMBERED, that seems conceptually correct.

>>> IMO, advanced marking is not needed, at least out of the box. For
>>> example, @address@hidden in Texinfo is morally equivalent to
>>> ~M-<TAB>~ in Org, as long as the document targets info.
>> Morally equivalent in that they're typeset the same, right?
> Correct.
>> I decided to embrace texinfo pedantry and make a kbd macro :)
> I think it really matters if you're going to use the Texinfo file to
> produce other formats than "info" (e.g., you're writing a GNU manual).
> If that's only for the "info" part, ~M-<TAB>~ is infinitely more
> readable.

I don't think anything needs to be done here, it's just a matter of what
authors want.

>> I'd be happy to provide a patch, and I think we should mention
>> `org-texinfo-text-markup-alist', as well. Then we can say "here's how
>> Org's basic markup elements are translated, here's a defcustom you can
>> play with, and failing that you can also make a macro".
> Sounds good.
>> To be honest I don't know how the markup alist is supposed to work,
>> though. If I mark up a phrase /like so/, shouldn't that count as
>> "italic", and get transformed into @emph{like so}?
> It should, and it does.
>> Right now it goes through unchanged into the Info file, which doesn't
>> seem right, since the Texinfo manual seems to indicate that _this_ is
>> the proper way to do emphasis.
> I cannot reproduce the problem.

I'll assume it's something version related, or local.

>> The other thing I'd like to expand is the "Plain lists in Texinfo
>> export" section. First of all, it's about definition lists, not plain
>> lists, which I found confusing. Also, I think it just needs to have more
>> basic information in it, unless you already know texinfo well, it's hard
>> to know what it's telling you.
> Agreed.

Great, I'll do this in the next couple of days.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]