Nicolas Goaziou <[email protected]> writes:
>>> I would like to keep a clear and somewhat future-proof rule about this:
>>>
>>> 1. A keyword a user can expect to find in all back-ends where it makes
>>> sense should be defined in "ox.el". To put it differently, it can be
>>> considered as a bug if a back-end could /simply/ support a keyword
>>> in this category but doesn't. Keywords in this category are to be
>>> documented in (info "(org)Export settings").
>
> I would add that, to be in that category, a keyword needs to be
> supported by at least 3 major back-ends (among ASCII, HTML, ODT and
> LaTeX).
That's simple enough and easy to test.
>> From a user perspective, I think it should be close to TITLE. Further,
>> putting it there also signal to external writers, e.g. ox-reveal, that
>> they should now try to support it. I think SUBTITLE, KEYWORD, and
>> DESCRIPTION is within the same category and should be treated the
>> same.
>
> Do you mean KEYWORD and DESCRIPTION should also belong to category 1?
> I'm not against it, but then, back-ends are required to support them
> whenever possible.
At the moment they are. They lack ascii support, but at least keywords
should be supported in ascii eventually IMO (but that's another thread).
So I would keep them. The documentation explicitly states which backend
these keywords are supported by.
>> We could add a subsection with "text document properties" which are
>> keywords that are supported by the set: {ox-html, ox-ascii, ox-odt,
>> ox-latex}. These would be sort of 1½ class citizens.
>
> I don't want to create a third category (à la
> `org-element-document-properties', which I'm trying to remove).
This category would not exists in the code. It would simply be a
classification that exists in the manual. I would be a hack to not
maintain "no. of backend that support SOME_KEYWORD" different places to
maintain documentation for SOME_KEYWORD.
Anyway, the above is fine so let's use that.
—Rasmus
--
Summon the Mothership!
