On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 08:11:25PM -0500, Nick Dokos wrote:
Peter Davis p...@pfdstudio.com writes:
I've now changed ox-html.el to include this:
As an FYI: you don't need to change ox-html.el. You can just load a file
containing the redefinition *after* you've loaded ox-html. Something
On 2013-12-02 11:38, Peter Davis wrote:
I've now changed ox-html.el to include this:
(defun org-html-checkbox (checkbox)
Format CHECKBOX into HTML.
(case checkbox (on #9746;)
(off #9744;)
(trans #9745;)
(t )))
This is sort of close to using
[ ] for unchecked
[/] for partially checked
[X] for
On 2013-12-02 03:44, Sebastien Vauban wrote:
Hello,
Carsten Dominik wrote:
I agree, but couldn't think of any other way. There are 3 other
unicode options:
1. A box with an X (☒ U+2612 BALLOT BOX WITH X)
2. A bare (unboxed) X (✗ U+2717 BALLOT X)
3 A bare checkmark (✓
Rick Frankel,
Rick Frankel wrote:
This is sort of close to using
[ ] for unchecked
[/] for partially checked
[X] for checked
To my aging eyes, the check in U#9745 looks almost like a forward
slash. Certainly, though, this would be potentially confusing,
especially if no [X] boxes were
On 12/3/13, 10:24 AM, Sebastien Vauban wrote:
Rick Frankel,
Rick Frankel wrote:
This is sort of close to using
[ ] for unchecked
[/] for partially checked
[X] for checked
To my aging eyes, the check in U#9745 looks almost like a forward
slash. Certainly, though, this would be potentially
Hello,
Carsten Dominik wrote:
I agree, but couldn't think of any other way. There are 3 other
unicode options:
1. A box with an X (☒ U+2612 BALLOT BOX WITH X)
2. A bare (unboxed) X (✗ U+2717 BALLOT X)
3 A bare checkmark (✓ U+2713 CHECK MARK)
I also found this character:
I've now changed ox-html.el to include this:
(defun org-html-checkbox (checkbox)
Format CHECKBOX into HTML.
(case checkbox (on #9746;)
(off #9744;)
(trans #9745;)
(t )))
This is sort of close to using
[ ] for unchecked
[/] for partially checked
[X] for checked
To my aging
Peter Davis p...@pfdstudio.com writes:
I've now changed ox-html.el to include this:
As an FYI: you don't need to change ox-html.el. You can just load a file
containing the redefinition *after* you've loaded ox-html. Something
like this (untested):
(eval-after-load ox-html
(defun
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 07:54:42AM +0100, Carsten Dominik wrote:
I don't thing the partial ones work - we should just make then
unchecked in export if there is nothing better. the grey dos not
convey the right information.
I agree, but couldn't think of any other way. There are 3 other
Hi Rick,
On 30.11.2013, at 15:07, Rick Frankel r...@rickster.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 07:54:42AM +0100, Carsten Dominik wrote:
I don't thing the partial ones work - we should just make then
unchecked in export if there is nothing better. the grey dos not
convey the right
On 2013-11-28 16:58, Matt Price wrote:
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Sebastien Vauban
sva-n...@mygooglest.com wrote:
Achim Gratz wrote:
Rick Frankel writes:
For xhtml compatibility, it would need to be 'checked=checked'. I've
done a quick look at the html dtd, and i does look like input
On 11/29/13, 11:11 AM, Rick Frankel wrote:
On 2013-11-28 16:58, Matt Price wrote:
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Sebastien Vauban
sva-n...@mygooglest.com wrote:
Achim Gratz wrote:
Rick Frankel writes:
For xhtml compatibility, it would need to be 'checked=checked'. I've
done a quick look at
Dear Rick,
this is a very useful comparison, thank you!
I don't thing the partial ones work - we should just make then unchecked in
export if there is nothing better. the grey dos not convey the right
information.
I like the last option (unicode characters) best. The inactive checkboxes are
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 01:20:59PM -0500, Peter Davis wrote:
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:03:38AM -0500, Nick Dokos wrote:
Peter Davis p...@pfdstudio.com writes:
I noticed that HTML output contains [ ] and [X], just like
the
mark-up. Wouldn't it make sense to use actual unchecked or
On 11/28/13, 8:33 AM, Rick Frankel wrote:
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 01:20:59PM -0500, Peter Davis wrote:
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:03:38AM -0500, Nick Dokos wrote:
Peter Davis p...@pfdstudio.com writes:
I noticed that HTML output contains [ ] and [X], just like
the
mark-up. Wouldn't it
fyi, this feature is heavily requested in Github for their markup project:
https://github.com/github/markup/issues/208
So +1 on changing this behavior in Org mode markup itself, since there is
already user demand which would validate this usage.
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 12:45 AM, Peter Davis
By the way TL;DR; from that Github thread:
It seems that Markdown by default does not support read only checkboxes,
and Github would not implement this behavior because they want to keep
compatibility with other implementations of Markdown:
Hi Rick,
Rick Frankel r...@rickster.com writes:
I would be willing to make this change (as an option?) to the html
exporter if others agree.
FWIW I do agree this is a good change.
--
Bastien
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Bastien b...@gnu.org wrote:
Hi Rick,
Rick Frankel r...@rickster.com writes:
I would be willing to make this change (as an option?) to the html
exporter if others agree.
FWIW I do agree this is a good change.
not that this opinion really matters, but I've
Rick Frankel writes:
For xhtml compatibility, it would need to be 'checked=checked'. I've
done a quick look at the html dtd, and i does look like input elements
are allowed outside of forms, but i would need to double
check... Also, the fallback to [-] for the partially checked state
is a bit
Achim Gratz wrote:
Rick Frankel writes:
For xhtml compatibility, it would need to be 'checked=checked'. I've
done a quick look at the html dtd, and i does look like input elements
are allowed outside of forms, but i would need to double
check... Also, the fallback to [-] for the partially
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Sebastien Vauban
sva-n...@mygooglest.com wrote:
Achim Gratz wrote:
Rick Frankel writes:
For xhtml compatibility, it would need to be 'checked=checked'. I've
done a quick look at the html dtd, and i does look like input elements
are allowed outside of forms,
Sebastien Vauban sva-n...@mygooglest.com
writes:
Achim Gratz wrote:
Rick Frankel writes:
For xhtml compatibility, it would need to be 'checked=checked'. I've
done a quick look at the html dtd, and i does look like input elements
are allowed outside of forms, but i would need to double
I noticed that HTML output contains [ ] and [X], just like the
mark-up. Wouldn't it make sense to use actual unchecked or checked
checkboxes in HTML?
Is there a simple way to do this that I've overlooked?
Thanks,
-pd
Peter Davis p...@pfdstudio.com writes:
I noticed that HTML output contains [ ] and [X], just like the
mark-up. Wouldn't it make sense to use actual unchecked or checked
checkboxes in HTML?
Is there a simple way to do this that I've overlooked?
A cursory glance through ox-html.el uncovered
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:03:38AM -0500, Nick Dokos wrote:
Peter Davis p...@pfdstudio.com writes:
I noticed that HTML output contains [ ] and [X], just like the
mark-up. Wouldn't it make sense to use actual unchecked or checked
checkboxes in HTML?
Is there a simple way to do this
26 matches
Mail list logo
