From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ista Zahn Subject: Re: Some projects Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:25:35 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87wpub9jts.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <877fmazh2f.fsf@gmail.com> <87fv0x1t49.fsf@berkeley.edu> <874mhczfil.fsf@gmail.com> <87k2q8mqwj.fsf@gmx.us> <87fv0wmnr5.fsf@gmx.us> <87ziz4l562.fsf@pank.eu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c0b65948826f8052317b0b6 Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49076) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zr682-000359-M6 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:25:40 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zr681-00071G-Aw for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:25:38 -0400 Received: from mail-yk0-x231.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4002:c07::231]:35513) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zr680-00070z-TG for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:25:37 -0400 Received: by ykek133 with SMTP id k133so39767945yke.2 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 08:25:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87ziz4l562.fsf@pank.eu> 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: Rasmus Pank Roulund Cc: emacs-orgmode Mailinglist --94eb2c0b65948826f8052317b0b6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Oct 27, 2015 11:09 AM, "Rasmus Pank Roulund" wrote: > > Hi, > > Ista Zahn writes: > > > I disagree. pandoc supports conversion to and from org-mode. > > I fail to see how this is relevant for the discussion at hand. > > > Making pandoc a requirement will enable other useful features (e.g., > > "Import documents from...", alternative pandoc-based exporters etc. > > AFAIK, nobody is working on this. Not yet :-) > > > IMO pandoc is easy on Windows and OSX. It is easy on some Linux distros > > but not all. > > > I use Arch LInux, where getting pandoc requires some work, but I think > > that is an issue that the Linux distros need to work out. > > No it doesn't: pacman -S pandoc. Good to know, thanks! That must be fairly recent. > > The relevant question here is whether we can accept to rely on pandoc for > CSL support. Any other feature is irrelevant. That seems like a narrow way to look at it. Of course I agree that the topic of discussion is citations, but I don't see why the bigger picture of what the various options provide should be ignored. I'll be happy to see improved citation support in org regardless of the implementation details. But I do think pandoc deserves a serious look, and I don't think the non-citation related possibilities it opens up are irrelevant. > > At 25MB, a static, precompiled pandoc is probably fine, but for users of > some OSs, such as Archlinux or even worse some OS where pandoc is not > generally available as a precompiled package, it=E2=80=99s a really, real= ly big > dependency. I may still be the best option, though. > > Rasmus > > -- > And when I=E2=80=99m finished thinking, I have to die a lot --94eb2c0b65948826f8052317b0b6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Oct 27, 2015 11:09 AM, "Rasmus Pank Roulund" <rasmus@pank.eu> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Ista Zahn <istazahn@gmail.com= > writes:
>
> > I disagree. pandoc supports conversion to and from org-mode.
>
> I fail to see how this is relevant for the discussion at hand.
>
> > Making pandoc a requirement will enable other useful features (e.= g.,
> > "Import documents from...", alternative pandoc-based ex= porters etc.
>
> AFAIK, nobody is working on this.

Not yet :-)
>
> > IMO pandoc is easy on Windows and OSX. It is easy on some Linux d= istros
> > but not all.
>
> > I use Arch LInux, where getting pandoc requires some work, but I = think
> > that is an issue that the Linux distros need to work out.
>
> No it doesn't: pacman -S pandoc.

Good to know, thanks! That must be fairly recent.
>
> The relevant question here is whether we can accept to rely on pandoc = for
> CSL support.=C2=A0 Any other feature is irrelevant.

That seems like a narrow way to look at it. Of course I agre= e that the topic of discussion is citations, but I don't see why the bi= gger picture of what the various options provide should be ignored.

I'll be happy to see improved citation support in org r= egardless of the implementation details. But I do think pandoc deserves a s= erious look, and I don't think the non-citation related possibilities i= t opens up are irrelevant.

>
> At 25MB, a static, precompiled pandoc is probably fine, but for users = of
> some OSs, such as Archlinux or even worse some OS where pandoc is not<= br> > generally available as a precompiled package, it=E2=80=99s a really, r= eally big
> dependency.=C2=A0 I may still be the best option, though.
>
> Rasmus
>
> --
> And when I=E2=80=99m finished thinking, I have to die a lot

--94eb2c0b65948826f8052317b0b6--