>> You are right. I missed that \\ is also a newline for LaTeX export. > > It is a line break in any export back-end.
I did not know this and I cannot find any reference about such behaviour in manual (info:org#Markup for Rich Contents). >> However, it is unused it unordered lists. We might define a note as a >> unnumbered list item with [@note]: >> >> - [@note] This is note > > That's a reasonable syntax extension, maybe too English-centered. Maybe > a more abstract [@!] would be better. It also looks better for me. Should I open separate bug report proposing this syntax extension? >> In addition, all the list items in :LOGBOOK: drawer may be considered >> notes (to avoid a need to change the current format of the >> automatically added notes). > > Notes are not necessary stuffed into a LOGBOOK drawer, or even into > a drawer at all. Besides, LOGBOOK is a common word, and it is not > unreasonable to think some user could have used it for other purposes. > > Old notes are going to be incompatible (as in ignored by any tool > processing notes, not invalid markup) with the new ones. I don't think > there's a way to eschew it. It doesn't seem to be a big deal, however, > as you don't lose anything by keeping notes in old syntax around. That said, if we decide about the new syntax, it might be a good idea to provide command converting items inside LOGBOOK drawers into notes. Best, Ihor Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes: > Hello, > > Ihor Radchenko <yanta...@gmail.com> writes: > >> You are right. I missed that \\ is also a newline for LaTeX export. > > It is a line break in any export back-end. > >> Another possibility is re-purposing counter definition from ordered >> lists. Currently the "\\[@[0-9]+\\]" is used to force item number in >> ordered lists: >> >> 1. item >> 5. [@5] another item >> 6. next item >> >> However, it is unused it unordered lists. We might define a note as a >> unnumbered list item with [@note]: >> >> - [@note] This is note > > That's a reasonable syntax extension, maybe too English-centered. Maybe > a more abstract [@!] would be better. > >> In addition, all the list items in :LOGBOOK: drawer may be considered >> notes (to avoid a need to change the current format of the >> automatically added notes). > > Notes are not necessary stuffed into a LOGBOOK drawer, or even into > a drawer at all. Besides, LOGBOOK is a common word, and it is not > unreasonable to think some user could have used it for other purposes. > > Old notes are going to be incompatible (as in ignored by any tool > processing notes, not invalid markup) with the new ones. I don't think > there's a way to eschew it. It doesn't seem to be a big deal, however, > as you don't lose anything by keeping notes in old syntax around. > > Regards, > -- > Nicolas Goaziou
