Hello, t...@tsdye.com (Thomas S. Dye) writes:
> I think there are two axes of variation here: > > 1) internationalization, and > 2) style guides, e.g., for a particular journal, Chicago Manual, etc. > > IIUC, hardcoding and org-export-dictionary solve 1) but not 2). > > In my experience, variation in 2) is idiosyncratic, though I haven't > looked specifically at table continuation lines. > > The user can solve both 1) and 2) with customizable continuation > strings, so it might be best to stay on this path instead of hardcoding > and internationalization in org-export-dictionary. I agree customization is more powerful here (although it means that all non-English Org users will need to change it), but so it is for every other multilingual string. Since we didn't choose to make multilingual strings customizable, I find it strange that this particular one is. Also, I you can use a filter to modify that string and make it comply to a specific style, if needed. IOW, you also get 1) and 2) with the `org-export-dictionary' way, with 1) being more user-friendly and 2) more difficult than in the current way. Am I missing something? Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou