Re: Emacs as word processor / Text Properties

[Jambunathan K]

A bit freewheeling.


"T.V. Raman" <address@hidden> writes:

> the structure of my content

Much depends on "my".

Let me call it "What I mean is what I mean" (Get off my lawn) processing
mode.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Novel, Script writing:
=====================

I remember seeing a screenshot (does someone have a link?) of an Emacs
buffer of popular sci-fi writer.  The buffer was showing a WIP novel.
IIRC, It was a flip-flop of ">"-prefixed lines (think Gnus-citaion
markers) and regular lines with the convention that one stood for the
actual prose of the novel and the other note on current context.  (For
example, the author could do flush-lines and keep-lines and get an early
draft of the novel.)

This author was proficient enough to have "invent his own system and
conventions to aid his own workflow".  (Isn't this freedom is all
about?)

Thought experiment:
==================

If I am a writer of novels (complex plot, reliant on research material
collected from disparate sources), can I re-purpose my Emacs to
"self-publish" a novel without getting in the way and much less effort.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Multi-lingual documents:
=====================

How about documents that have multiple scripts and one MAY have to
fiddle with bidi-settings on a per-element basis.  (Things like Bidi are
not only about aesthetics but also tied directly to the "content".)

Now if you want to have Tables with Bidi-text then Orgmode is
practically useless.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Org emphasis markers are un-satisfactory
========================================

Org - like any other markup format - imposes itself on the user.  (i.e.,
it caters to the lowest common denominator.)

Unfortuanately, there are people who want slightly more than the lowest
common denominator.  There have been numerous threads in the past, where
Org (and hence Emacs in general, so to speak) is KNOWN to be
unsatisfactory and getting in the way of what the user wants to do.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Realities of having and maintain a hand-written parser
======================================================

Org maintainers have refused to re-consider or re-purpose Org emphasis
markers (for a good reason).  By, "Emphasis" is meant what the user
himself thinks as emphasis and not what Org says it ought to be.

See http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=14157#8.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Emacs Lisp, Customizable, Extensible - Huh! - No Thanks
========================================================

Insisting on proficiency with Emacs Lisp, when computers and Emacs are
being used by non-programmers (Think, Arts and Humanities. A
non-LaTeX(?) camp.  Supporter of OpenDocument formats.)  is a bit absurd
in modern times.

That something is extensible or customizable is good on paper.  But if
it cannot put food on the plate, then that is a bit sad.

How many users of Emacs do you think can write a defun (leave alone a
export filter) in a single go.

,---- http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/2013-11/msg00849.html
| 
| So, is this feature a must-have? Or would a filter template in Worg more
| appropriate in this case?
`----

This thread was about introducing pagebreaks in the exported document.

,---- http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/2013-11/msg00849.html
|
| Anyway, I don't think this is a good idea to introduce a new syntax just
| to avoid a one-liner (or a hook, see below). Also, this would only make
| sense in few export back-ends.
| 
| Really, introducing new syntax has a cost, so you have to ponder if it's
| really useful, because, once installed, every Org user will have to pay
| the price for it.
| 
| Admittedly, in this particular case, that cost isn't very high, but
| I think it would nonetheless add up to the list of hardly-used syntax
| category."
`----

----------------------------------------------------------------

Generating Indices
==================

texi allows one to build an "index".

Is there a way I can specify an index for a book or manual I write with
Org-mode?

In LibreOffice, one can "extract" certain styles and generate a TOC for
it.

----------------------------------------------------------------

No Bibliographies
=================

There is no "standard" way to create Bibliographies.

----------------------------------------------------------------

No Real-life Tables
===================

I have expanded on this aspect before.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Need to extract and transform Text Properties
============================================

I believe the word-processing mode can come with an added feature
whereby one can "grok or transform" text based on "Text Properties".
i.e., Think regexp-replace but regexp specifies properties and not the
text itself.

See

    http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=15244
    http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=15245