On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 11:24:09 +0200, Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>> Eric S Fraga writes: > > > So you are saying, if I understand you correctly, that you cannot > > have something like this: > > > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- > > 1. some text > > - a nested list > > - with two items > > some more text for the first numbered item > > - another nested list - with two items > > 2. the second outer list item > > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- > > Exactly. > > > If so, why not? This would seem to be quite a likely and useful > > scenario. > > It would require a slightly different model with an added depth of > complexity. To tell the truth, I had looked into this, but hadn't > found a satisfying (clean) solution.
Okay. > For example, how should Org handle indentation of such a line, or any > line within the list? Should it "round" the indentation to the closest > level of a sub-list? Good question! I don't know the answer to this. [...] > Those questions are more rhetorical than anything else. My point is > just that this kind of scenario, while certainly doable, would need > more thought, and much more work to implement. Is it _that_ useful? I think it would be useful but not having it is definitely not a show stopper! It has come up as an issue for me recently because I have been managing the writing of a proposal with contributions from many authors and some of those authors like having multiple lists within other lists. It was when exporting a draft of the whole document that I realised that I was losing text, but I only noticed this because I lost a whole section which was several pages long! I think the key is not necessarily to support multiple sub-lists within an item but to *ensure* that no text is lost in export. I can see at a glance possibly whether text is formatted correctly but I cannot tell as easily that text has been lost in export. When working on a 30+ page document, this is crucial. From your previous message, it sounds like you have a fix for the lost text issue; that would be the main improvement for my usage. > > I do this all the time in latex and I was sure that I had done this > > before in org. Is my recollection wrong? Was this not possible > > before? > > As far as I remember, LaTeX exporter has never been able to parse > this, though the HTML one did. That could very well be. Thanks, eric
-- Eric S Fraga GnuPG: 8F5C 279D 3907 E14A 5C29 570D C891 93D8 FFFC F67D
_______________________________________________ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode