James Harkins <jamshar...@gmail.com> wrote: > ... > > I get the feeling here that the new beamer exporter was written > without a lot of real-world user requirements. Certainly, it's > understandable that HTML, LaTeX article-style and ODT exporters would > be more widely used and more important to get right first. For beamer, > though, I can't reconcile the announcement ("Even though the internals > are completely different, the new exporter mostly behaves like its > predecessor. There are only a few noticeable changes") with the fact > that the new beamer exporter is a rather different animal that > completely breaks compatibility with org files written for the old > exporter, and may actually require a complete redo of the org markup > for each file. > > I know my emacs-lisp chops are not up to the task of fixing what is > broken in the new beamer exporter. I can supply a couple dozen source > files, to help decide what level of backward compatibility is > feasible. I'm not sure how else I can help. > > At least, it would be good to clarify, with respect to the > announcement, if the new beamer exporter is intended to be reasonably > backward-compatible with the old (with not-too-intrusive tweaks). If > that was the intent, then it's not ready for release. Otherwise, I'd > be happy to help draw up an upgrade path for people like myself who > have developed workflows for the old exporter that will eventually not > be supported anymore. > > In the meantime, I must stick with the old exporter, though I'll keep > the discussion alive to hash out on the mailing list what needs to be > done to make the new one production-ready for me. >
I'm sure Nicolas is up to his ears in prep work, but eventually I'm sure he or somebody else who knows more about it than I do, will comment. Just as a general precaution, I wouldn't rush to judgement based on my fumbling attempts: these were small experiments done without knowing anything about the new exporter to begin with. I hope that they did more good than harm, but it *is* just a hope on my part. Don't mistake them for authoritative information. Nick