should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?

should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?

[Torsten Wagner]

Dear all,
since I subscribed to the maillist, the traffic increased enormously. 
This is very nice, however, recently I got difficulties to filter throw 
all the post searching for relevant topics for me. The babel project is 
using already a [babel] tag, and other tags floating around 
([PATCH],[OT],[Bug]). Thinking of tags, I wonder why we use [Orgmode] 
since all mails coming from emacs-orgmode(a)gnu.org which is a strong 
indicator already.

In general I guess a good mail client is capable to sort mails based on 
this tags or mail address. I just wonder whether there is an official 
list of tags on a prominent place like worg, or if especially the devs 
would like a separate emacs-orgmode-dev maillist.
If you believe a "How to post on the orgmode mailing list"-article in 
worg helps I would be willing to start with one.

Best regards

Torsten

Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?

[Andrew J. Korty]

Torsten Wagner <torsten.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thinking of tags, I wonder why we use [Orgmode] since all mails 
> coming from emacs-orgmode(a)gnu.org which is a strong indicator 
> already.

Not sure I agree with splitting the list, but the [Orgmode] tag is
definitely superfluous.  Who has a mail client that can't filter on
the List-Id field?

ajk

Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?

[Giovanni Ridolfi]

"Andrew J. Korty" <ajk@iu.edu> writes:

tags seems to be:

- [babel] [1] or [Babel] 
- [PATCH] 
- [PATCH n/m]
- [Accepted]  : means "patch accepted".
-  Bug:
- MobileOrg

acronym tags[2]:
[OT]
[RFC] 
and so on 

[1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/2009-11/msg00212.html
[2] http://www.gaarde.org/acronyms/

> Torsten Wagner <torsten.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thinking of tags, I wonder why we use [Orgmode] since all mails
>> coming from emacs-orgmode(a)gnu.org which is a strong indicator
>> already.
>
> Not sure I agree with splitting the list, but the [Orgmode] tag is
> definitely superfluous.  Who has a mail client that can't filter on
> the List-Id field?

Come on! This is a standard for GNU project mailing lists:

[gnugo-devel] Gnugo and CGoban [3]

[coreutils] new snapshot available: coreutils-8.7.66-561f8 [4]

I think it will never change.

cheers,
Giovanni

[3] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnugo-devel/2010-12/index.html
[4] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/coreutils/2010-12/index.html

Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?

[Nick Dokos]

Torsten Wagner <torsten.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thinking of tags, I wonder why we use
> [Orgmode] since all mails coming from emacs-orgmode(a)gnu.org which is
> a strong indicator already.

At least for me, the subject appears in my mail-reading pane so I can
see the tag, but the sender that appears is the original sender
(e.g. Torsten Wagner), not emacs-orgmode.  I'd have to look *in* the
mail to find the latter.

Nick

Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?

[Nick Dokos]

Andrew J. Korty <ajk@iu.edu> wrote:

> Not sure I agree with splitting the list, but the [Orgmode] tag is
> definitely superfluous.  Who has a mail client that can't filter on
> the List-Id field?
> 

It may be superfluous for some (all?) mail clients, but it is not
supefluous for *me*. Some duplication/supefluity is a *necessary* part
of effective human communication. Of course, you can argue that *this*
supefluity is *really* supefluous, but I'd disagree :-)

Nick

Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?

[Samuel Wales]

I have to use very large fonts, and tags present a huge problem for
that.  I do, however, agree with the concept.

I would just like to propose that the tags be kept to just a few
letters.  This allows reading more of the subject line.

Another point is that if important words are in the /beginning/ of the
subject line, that increases the chance that I and others who do not
have access to the entire subject line will read your message.

Also, while this might not work for everybody's client, I do know that
in gmail, it is very easy to /add/ a tag to a list according to a
pattern.  Thus, [Orgmode] is not necessary in gmail; you just filter
on the headers and add a label "O".K (like "O").  And O is much easier
to deal with because it leaves more space for the rest of the subject.

[Orgmode] [babel] makes the subject line impossible to read in most
cases with large fonts.

Hope it helps.

S

Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?

[William Gardella]

Torsten Wagner <torsten.wagner@gmail.com> writes:

> Dear all,
> since I subscribed to the maillist, the traffic increased
> enormously. This is very nice, however, recently I got difficulties to
> filter throw all the post searching for relevant topics for me. The
> babel project is using already a [babel] tag, and other tags floating
> around ([PATCH],[OT],[Bug]). Thinking of tags, I wonder why we use
> [Orgmode] since all mails coming from emacs-orgmode(a)gnu.org which is
> a strong indicator already.
>
> In general I guess a good mail client is capable to sort mails based
> on this tags or mail address. I just wonder whether there is an
> official list of tags on a prominent place like worg, or if especially
> the devs would like a separate emacs-orgmode-dev maillist.
> If you believe a "How to post on the orgmode mailing list"-article in
> worg helps I would be willing to start with one.
>
> Best regards
>
> Torsten
>

I cut down on the "information overload" in my inbox by not viewing this
list as mail at all.  Instead, I subscribe to it as an NNTP newsgroup,
gmane.emacs.orgmode at nntp://news.gmane.org/, which I view in Gnus.
This keeps the incredibly active conversation and development of
org-mode (which is a very good thing!) in a separate corner of my
computing life from my email.  From there it's easier to narrow down
what's relevant to org-mode topics I have an interest in, and I can also
leave newsgroup to its own devices when I don't have time to look at
this list.

-- 
William Gardella
J.D. Candidate
Class of 2011, University of Pittsburgh School of Law

Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?

[William Gardella]

Torsten Wagner <torsten.wagner@gmail.com> writes:

> Dear all,
> since I subscribed to the maillist, the traffic increased
> enormously. This is very nice, however, recently I got difficulties to
> filter throw all the post searching for relevant topics for me. The
> babel project is using already a [babel] tag, and other tags floating
> around ([PATCH],[OT],[Bug]). Thinking of tags, I wonder why we use
> [Orgmode] since all mails coming from emacs-orgmode(a)gnu.org which is
> a strong indicator already.
>
> In general I guess a good mail client is capable to sort mails based
> on this tags or mail address. I just wonder whether there is an
> official list of tags on a prominent place like worg, or if especially
> the devs would like a separate emacs-orgmode-dev maillist.
> If you believe a "How to post on the orgmode mailing list"-article in
> worg helps I would be willing to start with one.
>
> Best regards
>
> Torsten
>
>
>

For this "info overload" reason, I find it easier to follow this list as
a GMANE newsgroup ( nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.orgmode/ ) rather
than as a mailing list.  Makes it easier to tune it out when I'm
awaiting urgent things in my email.

And if you're a Gnus user (Gnuser?) it's more or less the same
difference, interface- and ease-wise :)

Best,
-- 
William Gardella
J.D. Candidate
Class of 2011, University of Pittsburgh School of Law

Re: Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?

[Eric S Fraga]

William Gardella <gardellawg@gmail.com> writes:


[...]

> For this "info overload" reason, I find it easier to follow this list as
> a GMANE newsgroup ( nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.orgmode/ ) rather
> than as a mailing list.  Makes it easier to tune it out when I'm
> awaiting urgent things in my email.
>
> And if you're a Gnus user (Gnuser?) it's more or less the same
> difference, interface- and ease-wise :)

Mind you, if you're a Gnus user, mail splitting makes it trivial to have
org-mode messages sent off to a different mail group... and, in fact,
just as trivial to split off all the [babel] messages!

In this vein, I could suggest that some extra tags might be used:


- agenda :: agenda views
- export :: export related (or even [latex], [html], ...)
- gtd    :: getting things done

suitably shortened maybe?  I'm not bothered in any case as all my org
emails go into their own group and sit there until I am on the train...
or until weekends when I might have some time to catch up (like
tonight).
-- 
: Eric S Fraga (GnuPG: 0xC89193D8FFFCF67D) in Emacs 23.2.1
: using Org-mode version 7.4 (release_7.4.25.geb0d)

Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?

[Torsten Wagner]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 676 bytes --]

Thanks for all the answers and discussions.
To summarise:
I guess nobody is interest to split the list. At least no dev mentioned a
need.
Tags are good but might need some guidance to use a certain set and possibly
shorten them wherever possible.
The issue with to long tag list is not only a problem for people with large
fonts. Many of us start to read mails on our smartphones where space is
limited as well.
Using [Orgmode] as a tag on the orgmode list is an arguable point. Maybe the
someone higher in the queue like to make a decision to shorten it to [Org].
I would like to start to write something in worg and then we might see how
useful it is.

Best regards
Torsten

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 716 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 201 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?

[Bastien]

Hi Torsten,

Torsten Wagner <torsten.wagner@gmail.com> writes:

> Using [Orgmode] as a tag on the orgmode list is an arguable point.
> Maybe the someone higher in the queue like to make a decision to
> shorten it to [Org].

I agreed this would be an improvement to use [Org].

If nobody have a strong objection, I'll make this change in two days.

Thanks for bringing this up,

-- 
 Bastien

Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?

[Štěpán Němec]

Bastien <bastien.guerry@wikimedia.fr> writes:

> Hi Torsten,
>
> Torsten Wagner <torsten.wagner@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Using [Orgmode] as a tag on the orgmode list is an arguable point.
>> Maybe the someone higher in the queue like to make a decision to
>> shorten it to [Org].
>
> I agreed this would be an improvement to use [Org].
>
> If nobody have a strong objection, I'll make this change in two days.

FWIW, I do. Having [Org] (or anything, really) prepended to the subjects
of _all_ mails coming from a list that is already uniquely identifiable
(e.g. by its address) has no information value altogether (unlike
[Babel], [PATCH] etc.) and only takes up the much precious Subject:
header space.

I have never understood why anyone would like anything like that.

If you want to somehow treat the mails from this list specially, why
don't you filter on the presence of the mailing list address in the
headers, for example?

  Štěpán

Re: Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?

[Bastien]

Hi Štěpán,

Štěpán Němec <stepnem@gmail.com> writes:

> FWIW, I do. Having [Org] (or anything, really) prepended to the subjects
> of _all_ mails coming from a list that is already uniquely identifiable
> (e.g. by its address) has no information value altogether (unlike
> [Babel], [PATCH] etc.) and only takes up the much precious Subject:
> header space.

Not that reducing the label from [Orgmode] to [Org] already seem to be a
progress in the right direction :)

Would you object having [Org] instead of [Orgmode]?

> I have never understood why anyone would like anything like that.

As Giovanni recalled, this is a standard GNU practice and I won't break
it.  Maybe this is a leftover from the time when most used email clients
had no clever filters -- but maybe it's still useful for web archiving 
or other purposes I cannot think of right now.

Cheers,

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?

[Jeff Horn]

On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Bastien <bastien.guerry@wikimedia.fr> wrote:
> Hi Štěpán,
>
> Štěpán Němec <stepnem@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> FWIW, I do. Having [Org] (or anything, really) prepended to the subjects
>> of _all_ mails coming from a list that is already uniquely identifiable
>> (e.g. by its address) has no information value altogether (unlike
>> [Babel], [PATCH] etc.) and only takes up the much precious Subject:
>> header space.
>
> Not that reducing the label from [Orgmode] to [Org] already seem to be a
> progress in the right direction :)
>
> Would you object having [Org] instead of [Orgmode]?
>
>> I have never understood why anyone would like anything like that.
>
> As Giovanni recalled, this is a standard GNU practice and I won't break
> it.  Maybe this is a leftover from the time when most used email clients
> had no clever filters -- but maybe it's still useful for web archiving
> or other purposes I cannot think of right now.
>

Is the capital-O gnu practice as well? I have no objection to changing
the tag, since gmail filters my mail for me, but a lower-case-o seems
more consistent with other org nomenclature.

-- 
Jeffrey Horn
http://www.failuretorefrain.com/jeff/

Re: Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?

[Nick Dokos]

Štěpán Němec <stepnem@gmail.com> wrote:

> FWIW, I do. Having [Org] (or anything, really) prepended to the subjects
> of _all_ mails coming from a list that is already uniquely identifiable
> (e.g. by its address) has no information value altogether (unlike
> [Babel], [PATCH] etc.) and only takes up the much precious Subject:
> header space.
> 
> I have never understood why anyone would like anything like that.
>

Because I can scan my inbox at a glance and triage quickly. Here's what
I see (with mh-e in emacs as my reader):

 ...
 221+ 01/04 Štěpán Němec   [Orgmode] Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?<<Bastien <bastien.guerry@wikimedia.fr> writes: > Hi Torste
 ...

If I am in org-mode mode (so to speak), I'll look at it. If not, I will
skip it for now and get back to it later.

Having the mailing list markers is indispensable to me. I belong to
quite a few MLs and the ones that don't have a marker are a PITA.
Shortening the marker is fine: eliminating it is not.

> If you want to somehow treat the mails from this list specially, why
> don't you filter on the presence of the mailing list address in the
> headers, for example?
> 

Because all of that needs additional setup, both at the front end to do
the filtering and at the back end to make sure that I don't miss anything.
And that needs debugging and continued maintenance (and missed emails when
something goes wrong, which inevitably it will). I'd rather have the list
software take care of it.

Nick

Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?

[Robert Pluim]

Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com> writes:

> Štěpán Němec <stepnem@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> FWIW, I do. Having [Org] (or anything, really) prepended to the subjects
>> of _all_ mails coming from a list that is already uniquely identifiable
>> (e.g. by its address) has no information value altogether (unlike
>> [Babel], [PATCH] etc.) and only takes up the much precious Subject:
>> header space.
>> 
>> I have never understood why anyone would like anything like that.
>>
>
> Because I can scan my inbox at a glance and triage quickly. Here's what
> I see (with mh-e in emacs as my reader):
>

(disclaimer: I've been seeing this argument for the best part of 20
years, I doubt I'm bringing anything new to the table, but I feel
strongly about it)

Triage is for *computers* to do, they're much better at it than humans.

Also, those markers in the subject are obnoxious and *really* annoying,
and take up valuable screen space.  Please don't clutter up the org-mode
emails for zero benefit.

>  ...
>  221+ 01/04 Štěpán Němec [Orgmode] Re: should the mail list be
> splitted resp. sub-tagged ?<<Bastien <bastien.guerry@wikimedia.fr>
> writes: > Hi Torste
>  ...
>
> If I am in org-mode mode (so to speak), I'll look at it. If not, I will
> skip it for now and get back to it later.
>
> Having the mailing list markers is indispensable to me. I belong to
> quite a few MLs and the ones that don't have a marker are a PITA.
> Shortening the marker is fine: eliminating it is not.
>
>> If you want to somehow treat the mails from this list specially, why
>> don't you filter on the presence of the mailing list address in the
>> headers, for example?
>> 
>
> Because all of that needs additional setup, both at the front end to do
> the filtering and at the back end to make sure that I don't miss anything.
> And that needs debugging and continued maintenance (and missed emails when
> something goes wrong, which inevitably it will). I'd rather have the list
> software take care of it.

org-mode list email has a List-Id header, the list software has already
taken care of it for you.  I fail to see how much can go wrong with
filtering on that, configure it once and you're done. (or read the list
via gmane, all nicely split out for you).

Robert

Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?

[Štěpán Němec]

Bastien <bastien.guerry@wikimedia.fr> writes:

> Hi Štěpán,
>
> Štěpán Němec <stepnem@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> FWIW, I do. Having [Org] (or anything, really) prepended to the subjects
>> of _all_ mails coming from a list that is already uniquely identifiable
>> (e.g. by its address) has no information value altogether (unlike
>> [Babel], [PATCH] etc.) and only takes up the much precious Subject:
>> header space.
>
> Not that reducing the label from [Orgmode] to [Org] already seem to be a
> progress in the right direction :)
>
> Would you object having [Org] instead of [Orgmode]?

Well, I wrote "anything", so, yeah ;-) But I actually usually read the
list through Gmane, so I'm mostly unaffected (and Gnus can also strip
the list identifier automatically). I still find any kind of such
server-side mangling Evil (see also Robert Pluim's reply, most of which
I could just sign myself), but from Nick Dokos' reply I see that for
people putting all incoming mail into one single place and not able or
willing to do anything more than that it can have its uses, so, each to
their own I guess...

Thank you for consideration,

  Štěpán

Re: Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?

[Nick Dokos]

[Forgot to reply-all - sorry about that. Apologies to Robert for
 the duplicate email.]

Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com> wrote:

> Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com> writes:
> 
> > Štěpán Němec <stepnem@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> FWIW, I do. Having [Org] (or anything, really) prepended to the subjects
> >> of _all_ mails coming from a list that is already uniquely identifiable
> >> (e.g. by its address) has no information value altogether (unlike
> >> [Babel], [PATCH] etc.) and only takes up the much precious Subject:
> >> header space.
> >> 
> >> I have never understood why anyone would like anything like that.
> >>
> >
> > Because I can scan my inbox at a glance and triage quickly. Here's what
> > I see (with mh-e in emacs as my reader):
> >
> 
> (disclaimer: I've been seeing this argument for the best part of 20
> years, I doubt I'm bringing anything new to the table, but I feel
> strongly about it)
> 
> Triage is for *computers* to do, they're much better at it than humans.
> 

You are kidding, right? How does the computer know what *I* need to do?

> Also, those markers in the subject are obnoxious and *really* annoying,
> and take up valuable screen space.  Please don't clutter up the org-mode
> emails for zero benefit.
> 

It is *not* zero benefit to me.

Nick

Re: Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?

[Nick Dokos]

Štěpán Němec <stepnem@gmail.com> wrote:

> ... I still find any kind of such
> server-side mangling Evil (see also Robert Pluim's reply, most of which
> I could just sign myself), but from Nick Dokos' reply I see that for
> people putting all incoming mail into one single place and not able or
> willing to do anything more than that it can have its uses, so, each to
> their own I guess...
> 

I think you misunderstand my workflow but I don't have time to explain:
suffice it to say that my mail handling is very similar to my task
handling in org-mode.  The two places I look at every morning (and a few
times during the day) are my agenda and my inbox. It is important that
they both stay lean.

Nick

Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?

[Robert Pluim]

Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com> writes:

> [Forgot to reply-all - sorry about that. Apologies to Robert for
>  the duplicate email.]
>

This is why I have Mail-Copies-To: never in my headers :) No biggie.

> Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com> writes:
>> 
>> > Štěpán Němec <stepnem@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> FWIW, I do. Having [Org] (or anything, really) prepended to the subjects
>> >> of _all_ mails coming from a list that is already uniquely identifiable
>> >> (e.g. by its address) has no information value altogether (unlike
>> >> [Babel], [PATCH] etc.) and only takes up the much precious Subject:
>> >> header space.
>> >> 
>> >> I have never understood why anyone would like anything like that.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Because I can scan my inbox at a glance and triage quickly. Here's what
>> > I see (with mh-e in emacs as my reader):
>> >
>> 
>> (disclaimer: I've been seeing this argument for the best part of 20
>> years, I doubt I'm bringing anything new to the table, but I feel
>> strongly about it)
>> 
>> Triage is for *computers* to do, they're much better at it than humans.
>> 
>
> You are kidding, right? How does the computer know what *I* need to do?
>

Because you tell it what to do?

>> Also, those markers in the subject are obnoxious and *really* annoying,
>> and take up valuable screen space.  Please don't clutter up the org-mode
>> emails for zero benefit.
>> 
>
> It is *not* zero benefit to me.

OK.  Zero benefit to people who split their email then.  I must admit
I've never understood why people don't, but to each his own.

Robert

Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?

[Achim Gratz]

Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com> writes:
> Triage is for *computers* to do, they're much better at it than humans.

Then let your MUA strip the tag off for you and live a happier life.

> Also, those markers in the subject are obnoxious and *really* annoying,
> and take up valuable screen space.  Please don't clutter up the org-mode
> emails for zero benefit.

They are very valuable when you need to quickly check things from a
computer where you don't have set up your filtering for instance.  Plus
they are indispensable for everyone who decides to not filter mail into
folders or anything like that.  They don't force you to not filter, so
why should you force them to change their workflow?

> org-mode list email has a List-Id header, the list software has already
> taken care of it for you.  I fail to see how much can go wrong with
> filtering on that, configure it once and you're done. (or read the list
> via gmane, all nicely split out for you).

This header is there for software to see, not for humans.  There is
multiple redundancy in both the headers and the tagging of the subject
line and this is what makes things resilient.  And yes, I read the list
via Gmane/GNUS, but that doesn't mean everyone has to do it the same
way.


Achim.
-- 
+<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+

Wavetables for the Terratec KOMPLEXER:
http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#KomplexerWaves

Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?

[Robert Pluim]

Achim Gratz <Stromeko@nexgo.de> writes:

> Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com> writes:
>> Triage is for *computers* to do, they're much better at it than humans.
>
> Then let your MUA strip the tag off for you and live a happier life.
>
>> Also, those markers in the subject are obnoxious and *really* annoying,
>> and take up valuable screen space.  Please don't clutter up the org-mode
>> emails for zero benefit.
>
> They are very valuable when you need to quickly check things from a
> computer where you don't have set up your filtering for instance.  Plus
> they are indispensable for everyone who decides to not filter mail into
> folders or anything like that.  They don't force you to not filter, so
> why should you force them to change their workflow?

Using your same argument from above, why don't they configure their MUA
to add the tag?  Why should I be forced to change my workflow to strip
it? (and the tags are not 'indispensable' for human triage: you can
display the To/CC or List-Id headers, which will contain org-mode as well).

>> org-mode list email has a List-Id header, the list software has already
>> taken care of it for you.  I fail to see how much can go wrong with
>> filtering on that, configure it once and you're done. (or read the list
>> via gmane, all nicely split out for you).
>
> This header is there for software to see, not for humans.  There is
> multiple redundancy in both the headers and the tagging of the subject
> line and this is what makes things resilient.  And yes, I read the list
> via Gmane/GNUS, but that doesn't mean everyone has to do it the same
> way.

Right, which is why I argue for the minimal simplicity of just setting
the header, and letting people take care of anything else they want to
do afterwards.

Anyway, I think we've reached the end of this discussion, it's
definitely not relevant to org-mode anymore.  Whoever maintains the list
will decide what they prefer.

Robert

Applying style to a paragraph for HTML export

[Robert Pluim]

(I thought this would be a FAQ, but I can't find anything similar)

Hi,

I'm exporting from org to html, which is working well. Since my final
target is MSWord, I'd like to add style information to various
paragraphs, ie bold, underline etc. I can see how to do eg *bold* for
individual words, but how do I apply that kind of formatting to a span
of text?

(I'm CSS-ignorant, so please use small words and talk slowly)

Thanks

Robert

Re: Applying style to a paragraph for HTML export

[Jambunathan K]

Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com> writes:

> (I thought this would be a FAQ, but I can't find anything similar)
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm exporting from org to html, which is working well. Since my final
> target is MSWord, I'd like to add style information to various
> paragraphs, ie bold, underline etc. I can see how to do eg *bold* for
> individual words, but how do I apply that kind of formatting to a span
> of text?

I recommend using the odt exporter and then use LibreOffice to convert
the resulting file to MSWord.

http://orgmode.org/worg/org-faq.html#convert-to-open-office

You can search for org-odt in this mailing list if you need further
info.

Jambunathan K.

>
> (I'm CSS-ignorant, so please use small words and talk slowly)
>
> Thanks
>
> Robert
>
>
>

-- 

Re: Applying style to a paragraph for HTML export

[Robert Pluim]

Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> writes:

> Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> (I thought this would be a FAQ, but I can't find anything similar)
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm exporting from org to html, which is working well. Since my final
>> target is MSWord, I'd like to add style information to various
>> paragraphs, ie bold, underline etc. I can see how to do eg *bold* for
>> individual words, but how do I apply that kind of formatting to a span
>> of text?
>
> I recommend using the odt exporter and then use LibreOffice to convert
> the resulting file to MSWord.
>
> http://orgmode.org/worg/org-faq.html#convert-to-open-office

Whilst that would work, it's inherently a 2-step process, versus 1 for
the html route, plus it requires installing yet-another-application. In
any case, the example file for the odt-converter has corrected my
misunderstanding: *bold* works even for multiple words (although it
appears the various style markers don't nest: */bold-italic/* give me
the same as *bold*).

Thanks

Robert

Re: Applying style to a paragraph for HTML export

[Jambunathan K]

Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com> writes:

> Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> (I thought this would be a FAQ, but I can't find anything similar)
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm exporting from org to html, which is working well. Since my final
>>> target is MSWord, I'd like to add style information to various
>>> paragraphs, ie bold, underline etc. I can see how to do eg *bold* for
>>> individual words, but how do I apply that kind of formatting to a span
>>> of text?
>>
>> I recommend using the odt exporter and then use LibreOffice to convert
>> the resulting file to MSWord.
>>
>> http://orgmode.org/worg/org-faq.html#convert-to-open-office
>
> Whilst that would work, it's inherently a 2-step process, versus 1 for
> the html route, plus it requires installing yet-another-application. 

I thought you said your final target is MSWord and not html.

> In any case, the example file for the odt-converter has corrected my
> misunderstanding: *bold* works even for multiple words (although it
> appears the various style markers don't nest: */bold-italic/* give me
> the same as *bold*).

Spanned text has to be part of the single emacs line and not be broken
across multiple lines.

>
> Thanks
>
> Robert
>
>
>

-- 

Re: Applying style to a paragraph for HTML export

[Jambunathan K]

Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com> writes:

> Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> (I thought this would be a FAQ, but I can't find anything similar)
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm exporting from org to html, which is working well. Since my final
>>> target is MSWord, I'd like to add style information to various
>>> paragraphs, ie bold, underline etc. I can see how to do eg *bold* for
>>> individual words, but how do I apply that kind of formatting to a span
>>> of text?
>>
>> I recommend using the odt exporter and then use LibreOffice to convert
>> the resulting file to MSWord.
>>
>> http://orgmode.org/worg/org-faq.html#convert-to-open-office
>
> Whilst that would work, it's inherently a 2-step process, versus 1 for
> the html route, plus it requires installing yet-another-application. In
> any case, the example file for the odt-converter has corrected my
> misunderstanding: *bold* works even for multiple words (although it
> appears the various style markers don't nest: */bold-italic/* give me
> the same as *bold*).

If you are using the odt exporter and if you don't use strikethrough
(let's say) you can repurpose OrgStrike style to render bold italic
style using the Stylist.

>
> Thanks
>
> Robert
>
>
>

-- 

Re: Applying style to a paragraph for HTML export

[Robert Pluim]

Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> writes:

> Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> (I thought this would be a FAQ, but I can't find anything similar)
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I'm exporting from org to html, which is working well. Since my final
>>>> target is MSWord, I'd like to add style information to various
>>>> paragraphs, ie bold, underline etc. I can see how to do eg *bold* for
>>>> individual words, but how do I apply that kind of formatting to a span
>>>> of text?
>>>
>>> I recommend using the odt exporter and then use LibreOffice to convert
>>> the resulting file to MSWord.
>>>
>>> http://orgmode.org/worg/org-faq.html#convert-to-open-office
>>
>> Whilst that would work, it's inherently a 2-step process, versus 1 for
>> the html route, plus it requires installing yet-another-application. 
>
> I thought you said your final target is MSWord and not html.

It is, but MSWord can read html directly, so no extra step is required.

>> In any case, the example file for the odt-converter has corrected my
>> misunderstanding: *bold* works even for multiple words (although it
>> appears the various style markers don't nest: */bold-italic/* give me
>> the same as *bold*).
>
> Spanned text has to be part of the single emacs line and not be broken
> across multiple lines.

Ah, I don't think that's documented anywhere. Looks like I'll have to
turn off auto-fill.

Thanks

Robert

Re: Applying style to a paragraph for HTML export

[Nick Dokos]

Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com> wrote:

> (I thought this would be a FAQ, but I can't find anything similar)
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I'm exporting from org to html, which is working well. Since my final
> target is MSWord, I'd like to add style information to various
> paragraphs, ie bold, underline etc. I can see how to do eg *bold* for
> individual words, but how do I apply that kind of formatting to a span
> of text?
> 
> (I'm CSS-ignorant, so please use small words and talk slowly)
> 

Reading section 12.5.8, "CSS support", and experimenting a bit,
I came up with a short example that I hope will clarify that section
for the CSS-ignorant (which I mostly am):

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
#+OPTIONS: ^:nil
#+STYLE: <style type=text/css> .bold {color: red;} </style>
#+STYLE: <style type=text/css> .inner {color: blue;} </style>

* Headline
  :PROPERTIES:
  :HTML_CONTAINER_CLASS: bold
  :END:
This is a bold section. This is done by using the HTML_CONTAINER_CLASS
property of the subtree and giving it the value bold, then setting the
style for class _bold_ to accomplish the desired goal.

But you can selectively
#+HTML: <span class="inner">
change some things like this
#+HTML: </span>
if you want.
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

Here is what I know about CSS (but take it with the appropriate grain
of salt - as I said, I'm mostly CSS-ignorant):

The thing to remember is that you can add <span>...</span> to delimit
HTML inline elements and <div>...</div> for HTML block elements.

Each can be given a class: <span class="foo">...</span> or an id:
<span id="bar">...</span>. Classes are hierarchical, ids are targeted.

In the style definitions, you write

 .foo { style info; ...}

for classes and

 #bar {style info; ...}

for ids.

So you can use #+HTML: ... to add spans or divs at the appropriate
places, giving them a class or id as you see fit, and then add #+STYLE:
definitions at the top to style them.

Be careful when typing: the slightest error will cause the browser to just
ignore whole swaths of styling, which makes debugging ... interesting.
I tend to edit the html file one tiny thing at a time and redisplaying. When
I've figured out what's wrong, I go back to the org file and try the result.

Nick

Re: Applying style to a paragraph for HTML export

[Jambunathan K]

Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com> writes:

> Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> (I thought this would be a FAQ, but I can't find anything similar)
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I'm exporting from org to html, which is working well. Since my final
>> target is MSWord, I'd like to add style information to various
>> paragraphs, ie bold, underline etc. I can see how to do eg *bold* for
>> individual words, but how do I apply that kind of formatting to a span
>> of text?
>> 
>> (I'm CSS-ignorant, so please use small words and talk slowly)
>> 
>
> Reading section 12.5.8, "CSS support", and experimenting a bit,
> I came up with a short example that I hope will clarify that section
> for the CSS-ignorant (which I mostly am):
>
> #+OPTIONS: ^:nil
> #+STYLE: <style type=text/css> .bold {color: red;} </style>
> #+STYLE: <style type=text/css> .inner {color: blue;} </style>
>
> * Headline
>   :PROPERTIES:
>   :HTML_CONTAINER_CLASS: bold
>   :END:
> This is a bold section. This is done by using the HTML_CONTAINER_CLASS
> property of the subtree and giving it the value bold, then setting the
> style for class _bold_ to accomplish the desired goal.
>
> But you can selectively
> #+HTML: <span class="inner">
> change some things like this
> #+HTML: </span>
> if you want.

or like this:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
@<span class="inner"> change some things like this @</span>
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

Note the "at"s preceding the html tags.

>
> Here is what I know about CSS (but take it with the appropriate grain
> of salt - as I said, I'm mostly CSS-ignorant):
>
> The thing to remember is that you can add <span>...</span> to delimit
> HTML inline elements and <div>...</div> for HTML block elements.
>
> Each can be given a class: <span class="foo">...</span> or an id:
> <span id="bar">...</span>. Classes are hierarchical, ids are targeted.
>
> In the style definitions, you write
>
>  .foo { style info; ...}
>
> for classes and
>
>  #bar {style info; ...}
>
> for ids.
>
> So you can use #+HTML: ... to add spans or divs at the appropriate
> places, giving them a class or id as you see fit, and then add #+STYLE:
> definitions at the top to style them.
>
> Be careful when typing: the slightest error will cause the browser to just
> ignore whole swaths of styling, which makes debugging ... interesting.
> I tend to edit the html file one tiny thing at a time and redisplaying. When
> I've figured out what's wrong, I go back to the org file and try the result.
>
> Nick
>
>

--