From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jambunathan K Subject: Re: [new exporter] [html] Tables of Contents Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 15:40:08 +0530 Message-ID: <87wqtk96v3.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87r4jszwj6.fsf@lapcat.tftorrey.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:37632) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UDBIh-0006CD-BI for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 05:10:20 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UDBIg-0006Vx-9N for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 05:10:19 -0500 Received: from mail-pb0-f54.google.com ([209.85.160.54]:45890) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UDBIg-0006Vp-3B for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 05:10:18 -0500 Received: by mail-pb0-f54.google.com with SMTP id rr4so5788453pbb.27 for ; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 02:10:17 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87r4jszwj6.fsf@lapcat.tftorrey.com> (T. F. Torrey's message of "Wed, 06 Mar 2013 02:51:09 -0700") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: "T.F. Torrey" Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org, n.goaziou@gmail.com tftorrey@tftorrey.com (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.