El Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:25:13 +0200 Nicolas Goaziou va escriure: > > Hello, > > Daniel Clemente <n142...@gmail.com> writes: > > > I also saw this change (diff format): > > > > -<div id="outline-container-sec-1-4-3-1-2" class="outline-6"> > > -<h6 id="sec-1-4-3-1-2"><span class="section-number-6">1.4.3.1.2</span> > > tercer error con stash</h6> > > +<div id="outline-container-orgheadline129" class="outline-6"> > > +<h6 id="orgheadline129"><span class="section-number-6">1.4.3.1.2</span> > > tercer error con stash</h6> > > > > The #sec-1-4-3-1-2 format was better. If I delete section 1.4.3.1.2, > > section 1.5 is still called 1.5, that's good. > > And if you delete section 1.4, section 1.5 is no longer called 1.5. So > you need to update IDs most times you change headline numbering. I don't > think it is really better than the current state. >
It's good to minimize the number of changes after each export. I prefer to review 10 changes rather than 200. I cannot just forget and let the automatic export work its way; I need to review it because in every export I find many different export bugs or unexpected features. While the two systems work, I don't see either why the #orgheadline129 system is better than the #sec-1-4-3-1-2. Not important enough to justify a breaking change either. > > And what's the use of IDs if they're not permanent? > > The point is that Org knows the ID associated to a given headline, and > provides tools to access them (`org-export-get-reference' for back-end > developers, [[*tercer error con stash]] for users). > IDs are not only internal. CSS knows about it, JS too, and URLs can be built and shared through the web that include org IDs (myweb.com/somedoc.html#someid).
