On 4/29/10 Apr 29 -9:14 AM, Carsten Dominik wrote:
On Apr 29, 2010, at 3:57 PM, Wes Hardaker wrote:
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 14:38:47 -0500, Robert Goldman
<address@hidden> said:
RG> 1. Would it be reasonable to move the documentation for
RG> org-export-generic into the contrib/ directory of org-mode? It
RG> seems ... suboptimal to have this package be maintained in the
org
RG> git repo, but its documentation in the worg git repo. At
least from
RG> my PoV this raises the bar for keeping the documentation up-to-
date
RG> and synchronized to a pretty high level.
I'll let Carsten answer questions like that ;-)
The reason for this is the following.
Many of the contributed packages where written by people who were
active
in Org-mode for a while and then less so. Many of these package
had no
documentation at all. So I started a page on WOrg where this
documentation can be added and edited by other users, with quite
some success - now most package do have documentation.
Keeping documentation for a contributed package the the org-repo
would
be OK, but there would be no mechanism to automatically put the
latest
version up on on the web.
Changing this would require a volunteer who commits to keep the
documentation
of contributed packages in a consistent and web-publishable way in
the
contrib directory.
Here's the particular problem for org-export-generic --- maybe
there's a
solution:
org-export-generic is primarily data-driven. To specify an export
technique, you populate a very big data structure using a macro with
what look like common-lisp keywords. Here's an example:
(org-set-generic-type
"tikiwiki"
'(:file-suffix ".txt"
:key-binding ?U
;; lifted from wikipedia exporter
:header-prefix ""
:header-suffix ""
:title-format "-= %s =-\n"
:date-export nil
:toc-export nil
:body-header-section-numbers nil
:body-section-prefix "\n"
:body-section-header-prefix ("! " "!! " "!!! " "!!!! "
"!!!!! " "!!!!!! " "!!!!!!! ")
:body-section-header-suffix (" \n" " \n" " \n"
" \n" " \n" " \n")
:body-line-export-preformated t ;; yes/no/maybe???
:body-line-format "%s "
:body-line-wrap nil
:body-line-fixed-format " %s\n"
:body-list-format "* %s\n"
:body-number-list-format "# %s\n"
;; :body-list-prefix "LISTSTART"
;; :body-list-suffix "LISTEND"
:blockquote-start "\n^\n"
:blockquote-end "^\n\n"
:body-newline-paragraph t
))
The problem is that this is VERY difficult to document as the set of
keywords expands (e.g., I add :body-newline-paragraph, :blockquote-
start
and :blockquote-end). These aren't arguments, so they can't get
documented in the code in a docstring. org-set-generic-type is a
function, not a mode, so there's no docstring for the mode to hold the
documentation.
This is already not working, AFAICT, the worg docs don't seem to be
complete or accurate.
I'm pretty convinced from general code and document-writing practice
that the best solution would be one that puts the documentation as
close
to the code as possible.
If this were common-lisp, I would add a new method to the
DOCUMENTATION
generic function, so that one could say
(documentation :body-newline-paragraph :org-export-keyword)
Then we could add a declaration macro, and put the docstring there:
(def-generic-export-keyword :body-newline-paragraph
:boolean
"Should newlines ONLY be used as paragraph breaks. If
the associated value is true, then org-export-generic will
flow contiguous paragraphs into one long line, adding newlines
only where there is a blank line. Should be coupled with a
value for :body-line-format that does NOT contain a newline
character, e.g., \"%s \"")
I suppose we could add something like this, and possibly even
write a script that would blat the docstring into something that
Worg could display.
Any thoughts?
Best,
r