feature request: best practices for speaker notes and incremental lists/elements

feature request: best practices for speaker notes and incremental lists/elements

[Matt Price]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1604 bytes --]

In writing ox-md-pandoc, I ad occasion to translate org-reveal's spearker
note syntax into html .  It revived an older concern of mine, that
ox-reveal and ox-deck have different ways of representing near-identical
features within org.

** Speaker notes

Speaker notes are represented thus for export to reveal.js:

#+BEGIN_NOTES
Here are my awesome notes
#+END_NOTES

and for export to deck.js:

* Notes :note:
Here are my awesome notes

-------------

** incremental lists/elements

incrementally-shown elements are produced thus in reveal:

** My Slide Header
#+ATTR_REVEAL: :frag (appear)
- list 1 is one click away
- list 2 is two clicks away

and in deck:

* My Slide Header
:Properties:
:STEP: t
:END:
- list 1 is one click away
- list 2 is two clicks away

------------

I think the two exporters should use the same syntax! I especially think
that any future exporters should use a single, unified syntax, and that the
older exporters should eventualyl be changed to support that new syntax.
And finally, I think the new syntax should be as simple as humanly
possible.  So I'd like to suggest that the community decide on the best way
forward.

I don't really have an opinion as to which method is better; in fact, I
imagine there's probably a method tjat is better and simpler than any that
have been developed thus far.  Certianly I think what he have right now is
pretty awkward  But I think it's worth figuring out what we want to do, and
then implementing it.

And once we've done that, it wil lbe easier for me to add the proper
functionality to the md-pandoc exporter, too.

Thanks,

Matt

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2167 bytes --]

Re: feature request: best practices for speaker notes and incremental lists/elements

[Rasmus]

Matt Price <moptop99@gmail.com> writes:

> I think the two exporters should use the same syntax! I especially think
> that any future exporters should use a single, unified syntax, and that
> the older exporters should eventualyl be changed to support that new
> syntax.  And finally, I think the new syntax should be as simple as
> humanly possible.  So I'd like to suggest that the community decide on
> the best way forward.

We can try to make a common syntax across our exporter, namely ox-desk,
ox-beamer and ox-s5 to the extend that these support "speaker notes".  A
"pull request" can then be made to ox-reveal.el, which AFAIK is neither
part of lisp or contrib/lisp.

Cheers,
Rasmus

-- 
It was you, Jezebel, it was you

Re: feature request: best practices for speaker notes and incremental lists/elements

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Hello,

Rasmus <rasmus@gmx.us> writes:

> Matt Price <moptop99@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I think the two exporters should use the same syntax! I especially think
>> that any future exporters should use a single, unified syntax, and that
>> the older exporters should eventualyl be changed to support that new
>> syntax.  And finally, I think the new syntax should be as simple as
>> humanly possible.  So I'd like to suggest that the community decide on
>> the best way forward.
>
> We can try to make a common syntax across our exporter, namely ox-desk,
> ox-beamer and ox-s5 to the extend that these support "speaker notes".  A
> "pull request" can then be made to ox-reveal.el, which AFAIK is neither
> part of lisp or contrib/lisp.

Note that "common syntax" probably means less features (i.e., we are
limited to common features).

As suggested, I think, it seems better to create a generic export
back-end from scratch, which would allow to select a target (e.g.,
beamer, reveal.js...), than altering current back-ends and enter
backward-compatibility's hell.

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou

Re: feature request: best practices for speaker notes and incremental lists/elements

[Matt Price]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1460 bytes --]

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Rasmus <rasmus@gmx.us> writes:
>
> > Matt Price <moptop99@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> I think the two exporters should use the same syntax! I especially think
> >> that any future exporters should use a single, unified syntax, and that
> >> the older exporters should eventualyl be changed to support that new
> >> syntax.  And finally, I think the new syntax should be as simple as
> >> humanly possible.  So I'd like to suggest that the community decide on
> >> the best way forward.
> >
> > We can try to make a common syntax across our exporter, namely ox-desk,
> > ox-beamer and ox-s5 to the extend that these support "speaker notes".  A
> > "pull request" can then be made to ox-reveal.el, which AFAIK is neither
> > part of lisp or contrib/lisp.
>
> Note that "common syntax" probably means less features (i.e., we are
> limited to common features).
>

Yes, certainly -- there would doubtless still be a need for some
backend-specific hacks, just not as many as we currently have.

>
> As suggested, I think, it seems better to create a generic export
> back-end from scratch, which would allow to select a target (e.g.,
> beamer, reveal.js...), than altering current back-ends and enter
> backward-compatibility's hell.
>

That does sound like a good idea. Can I ask, what syntactical structures
seem best to you?



> Regards,
>
> --
> Nicolas Goaziou
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2422 bytes --]