[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [O] [ANN] Merge of new export framework on Wednesday
From: |
Nicolas Goaziou |
Subject: |
Re: [O] [ANN] Merge of new export framework on Wednesday |
Date: |
Sat, 09 Feb 2013 19:49:44 +0100 |
"Sean O'Halpin" <address@hidden> writes:
> I haven't made myself clear. I'm not suggesting a general concept of
> "head". What I am suggesting is that the back-ends handle these
> back-end specific concepts themselves, rather than add more buffer
> keywords for every new exporter.
Each back-end adds its own keywords, define them, document them and
interpret them. So, basically, backends handle these concept themselves,
don't they?
> This would not require unifying every back-end at all. In fact, quite
> the opposite. All you would need would be for the generic exporter
> framework to provide the back-end a dictionary of key value pairs,
> such as ((:head "<script.../>") ...), which the back-end would
> interpret.
This is exactly what is happening.
> You would avoid having to add document level keywords such as
> HTML_STYLE and MAN_CLASS_OPTIONS for new exporters. It would be the
> back-end's responsibility to validate and document these options. My
> suggestion is really not so different from what the new exporter does
> anyway. Where we now have =#+HTML_LINK_UP: "..."=, I'm suggesting we
> have =#+EXPORT: html link-up "..."=.
Honestly, besides the syntax, I don't see any difference.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Goaziou
- Re: [O] org export Taskjuggler, (continued)
Re: [O] [ANN] Merge of new export framework on Wednesday, Jay Kerns, 2013/02/06
Re: [O] [ANN] Merge of new export framework on Wednesday, Sean O'Halpin, 2013/02/08
Re: [O] [ANN] Merge of new export framework on Wednesday, Achim Gratz, 2013/02/09
Re: [O] [ANN] Merge of new export framework on Wednesday, Jambunathan K, 2013/02/09
Re: [O] compilation issues of new export framework, Achim Gratz, 2013/02/09