On Oct 27, 2015 11:09 AM, "Rasmus Pank Roulund" <ras...@pank.eu> wrote: > > Hi, > > Ista Zahn <istaz...@gmail.com> writes: > > > I disagree. pandoc supports conversion to and from org-mode. > > I fail to see how this is relevant for the discussion at hand. > > > Making pandoc a requirement will enable other useful features (e.g., > > "Import documents from...", alternative pandoc-based exporters etc. > > AFAIK, nobody is working on this.
Not yet :-) > > > IMO pandoc is easy on Windows and OSX. It is easy on some Linux distros > > but not all. > > > I use Arch LInux, where getting pandoc requires some work, but I think > > that is an issue that the Linux distros need to work out. > > No it doesn't: pacman -S pandoc. Good to know, thanks! That must be fairly recent. > > The relevant question here is whether we can accept to rely on pandoc for > CSL support. Any other feature is irrelevant. That seems like a narrow way to look at it. Of course I agree that the topic of discussion is citations, but I don't see why the bigger picture of what the various options provide should be ignored. I'll be happy to see improved citation support in org regardless of the implementation details. But I do think pandoc deserves a serious look, and I don't think the non-citation related possibilities it opens up are irrelevant. > > At 25MB, a static, precompiled pandoc is probably fine, but for users of > some OSs, such as Archlinux or even worse some OS where pandoc is not > generally available as a precompiled package, it’s a really, really big > dependency. I may still be the best option, though. > > Rasmus > > -- > And when I’m finished thinking, I have to die a lot