On 11/03/17 07:32, Samuel Wales wrote:
On 3/10/17, Eric S Fraga wrote:
I would say Markdown if you are collaborating with someone not familiar
with Emacs. The Pandoc version will do a surprising amount. Org-mode
for nearly everything else, but if you need more, go on to LaTeX.
Excellent summa
On 3/10/17, Eric S Fraga wrote:
>> I would say Markdown if you are collaborating with someone not familiar
>> with Emacs. The Pandoc version will do a surprising amount. Org-mode
>> for nearly everything else, but if you need more, go on to LaTeX.
>
> Excellent summary.
the pandoc version of ...
On Friday, 10 Mar 2017 at 16:14, Uwe Brauer wrote:
> Now this is interesting. I have been using LaTeX for the last 20 years
> or even more, always with (X)Emacs + AuCTex. While I see the benefits of
> org mode (especially its excellent table support) I see its deficits (in
> my opinion) when it com
>>> "John" == John Kitchin writes:
> It is on Melpa I think:
> https://melpa.org/#/ox-clip
Right, thanks, works nicely!
It is on Melpa I think:
https://melpa.org/#/ox-clip
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 11:24 AM Uwe Brauer wrote:
> >>> "John" == John Kitchin writes:
>
>> Sometimes I just use ox-clip to copy org-mode into word with
> formatting.
>> It works pretty well for simple things.
>
> I looked around for
>>> "John" == John Kitchin writes:
> Sometimes I just use ox-clip to copy org-mode into word with formatting.
> It works pretty well for simple things.
I looked around for ox-clip. This is not a package available in elpa,
melpa and friends. I only found https://github.com/jkitchin/scimax
>>> "John" == John Kitchin writes:
> Over the past few years I have looked at pandoc a few times:
> http://kitchingroup.cheme.cmu.edu/blog/2014/07/17/Pandoc-does-org-mode-now/
>
http://kitchingroup.cheme.cmu.edu/blog/2015/01/29/Export-org-mode-to-docx-with-citations-via-pandoc/
>
ht
Alan L Tyree writes:
> I have also written in rst: it is a slightly richer language out of
> the box with provisions for sidebars, cautions, etc, but unless you
> really need those things, I would stick with org-mode. I find the
> syntax of rst to be very fiddly. Most of the special effects can b
Over the past few years I have looked at pandoc a few times:
http://kitchingroup.cheme.cmu.edu/blog/2014/07/17/Pandoc-does-org-mode-now/
http://kitchingroup.cheme.cmu.edu/blog/2015/01/29/Export-org-mode-to-docx-with-citations-via-pandoc/
http://kitchingroup.cheme.cmu.edu/blog/2015/06/11/ox-pandoc-
On Thursday, 9 Mar 2017 at 23:27, Alan L Tyree wrote:
[...]
> I would say Markdown if you are collaborating with someone not familiar
> with Emacs. The Pandoc version will do a surprising amount. Org-mode
> for nearly everything else, but if you need more, go on to LaTeX.
Excellent summary.
> On 10/03/17 09:03, Saša Janiška wrote:
> The only problem that I have had is converting org-mode to Word files
> as required by my publisher. The ODT export module is fiddly and often
> chokes on my longer documents. When it does choke, it is hard to trace
> the problems. Markdow
Is there any direct way to get the "see 4.6.1" form of reference? I
doubt it since it clearly requires a double pass of the manuscript,
first to assign section numbers and labels, then to put in the
appropriate reference. LaTeX does that.
To answer my own question: Don't have any text in th
On 10/03/17 11:17, Samuel Wales wrote:
On 3/9/17, Alan L Tyree wrote:
The only problem that I have had is converting org-mode to Word files as
required by my publisher. The ODT export module is fiddly and often
chokes on my longer documents. When it does choke, it is hard to trace
the problems.
On 3/9/17, Alan L Tyree wrote:
> The only problem that I have had is converting org-mode to Word files as
> required by my publisher. The ODT export module is fiddly and often
> chokes on my longer documents. When it does choke, it is hard to trace
> the problems. Markdown + Pandoc seems much bett
On 10/03/17 09:03, Saša Janiška wrote:
John Kitchin writes:
Could you be more specific about what kind of richness you are looking
for?
In a general sense…iow, it’s a fact that rst markup is richer than
e.g. Markdown. Probably, Asciidoc(tor) also provides more semantic
richness and make it su
John Kitchin writes:
> Could you be more specific about what kind of richness you are looking
> for?
In a general sense…iow, it’s a fact that rst markup is richer than
e.g. Markdown. Probably, Asciidoc(tor) also provides more semantic
richness and make it suitable markup for longer docs/books, s
>>> "John" == John Kitchin writes:
> org does not deal with javascript or css for me. Those are defined by
> the static blog engine (blogofile in this case).
> I wrote some posts quite a while ago on the setup here:
>
http://kitchingroup.cheme.cmu.edu/blog/2013/09/27/Installing-and-
org does not deal with javascript or css for me. Those are defined by
the static blog engine (blogofile in this case).
I wrote some posts quite a while ago on the setup here:
http://kitchingroup.cheme.cmu.edu/blog/2013/09/27/Installing-and-configuring-blogofile/
http://kitchingroup.cheme.cmu.edu/b
>>> "John" == John Kitchin writes:
> Could you be more specific about what kind of richness you are looking
> for? Many people blog from org-mode, including myself. I use org-mode to
> generate html that is rendered with blogofile
> (http://kitchingroup.cheme.cmu.edu) but others do ma
Could you be more specific about what kind of richness you are looking
for? Many people blog from org-mode, including myself. I use org-mode to
generate html that is rendered with blogofile
(http://kitchingroup.cheme.cmu.edu) but others do many other variations.
Personally, org-mode meets all my m
Hello,
I’m using org-mode for my task management and it works great…moving to
static-site-generators which do support writing web-content/blog-posts
using both org-mode and rst markup, so consider how does org-mode markup
compare in comparison with the richness of rst markup when it comes to
the g
21 matches
Mail list logo
