Hi Amin, > What do you (other folks also) think?
A while ago Nicolas forwarded me an email between him and Laszlo on this. Here are my thoughts at the time addresses to Laszlo (which haven’t changed much since): Nicolas <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes: > IIUC, merge is only viable if “ox-slimhtml” is a drop-in replacement for > “ox-html”. Otherwise, users will miss out many features. Of course, we > could ship two competing HTML export back-ends, but I don’t think that’s > a good idea either. > > So, it is meant for inclusion in Org proper, or as a GNU ELPA package? > I don’t know. Maybe Timothy has a clearer view about it. I believe I see your motivation in creating ox-slimhtml, as the current ox-html includes much more than could be considered strictly necessary. However, like Nicolas I am hesitant to put this straight into Org along side ox-html. My personal view is that ideally ox-html would be equipped with the relevant knobs and levers (metaphorically speaking) such that one could obtain the same result as ox-slimhtml, the current result, or something in-between. I’ve felt for some time that ox-html could benefit from a bit more in-built flexibility without going down the path of hooks, filters, and advice. This would certainly be more effort, so I completely understand if this isn’t something you’d like to undertake. In that case, I feel that this may be best suited as an ELPA package — closely in reach for those who are looking for a slimmer ox-html. All the best, Timothy
