Re: [O] [bug] Inline tasks are exported, even with noexport tag

[Nicolas Goaziou]

"Sebastien Vauban"
<address@hidden> writes:

> Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
>> "Sebastien Vauban" writes:
>>
>>> The following ECM fails on 2 fronts:
>>>
>>> - the `noexport' tag on the inline task is not respected;
>>
>> Should it?
>
> Well, it previously did.

Yes, but that is unrelated to my question.

> And that's pretty interesting: you can put "private" inline blocks,
> and have them exported or not, depending of the target of your
> document.

So can drawers.

>> Inlinetasks are not headlines, even though they use a somewhat similar
>> syntax. :noexport: tag applies to trees. Inlinetasks do not define a tree.
>
> For me, inline tasks were (up to now) exactly like trees but with an end, and
> their contents was inline in the current entry, without disrupting the outline
> structure.

Inlinetasks cannot have children, which seriously limits their "tree"
shape. They are more of a pile of leaves.

> We could use them to mirror "note" or "warning" blocks or paragraphs
> we find in all books, and that in a portable manner (regarding the
> multi-backends).

Again, my question was not about the usefulness of inlinetasks.

> As (I understood that) they were like headlines, we could anything like for
> real headlines:
>
> - adding tags
> - adding TODO keywords
> - adding drawers
> - adding clocking information
> - etc.
>
> Is this not right anymore?

It is right that inlinetasks can have tags, TODO keywords, properties
drawers and clocking information, like headlines. They also appear in
the agenda like headlines.

But that doesn't make them exactly headlines. For example, they can be
included in plain lists, whereas headlines cannot.

Headlines and inlinetasks share the looks, not the structure.

So my question is about /export/ of inlinetasks. Since they are not
headlines, where is drawn the line between them?

>From above, it sounds logical to have them affected by variables
controlling the looks (e.g. `org-export-with-tags') but not by those
controlling the structure (e.g. `org-export-with-section-numbers'). Both
`org-export-select-tags' and `org-export-exclude-tags' belong to the
latter[fn:1]. At least, that's my reasoning.

Why do you think `org-export-select-tags' would make sense for
inlinetasks (besides "because we can add such tags there")?

>> More generally, `org-export-with-tasks', `org-export-select-tags' and
>> `org-export-exclude-tags' only apply on headlines.
>
> I understand there is a "yes for all" / "no for all" switch, but the ability
> to mark some of the inline blocks NOT for export is a functionality which,
> IMHO, we should avoid to drop.

This functionality is already provided by drawers, as said above.

>> On the other hand, `org-export-with-inlinetasks' allows you to ignore
>> inlinetasks completely during export. For conditional export, you may
>> also want to look at drawers, which can be included/excluded by their
>> name.
>
> If inline tasks can or should be replaced by drawers, what is their
> use, then?

I never said that. I suggested to also think about drawers for
conditional export.

IIRC, their original use was to insert tasks in the agenda without
modifying the structure of the document, i.e. they were more agenda
oriented than export oriented.


Regards,

[fn:1] A more difficult variable to judge is `org-export-with-tasks'.
For now inlinetasks ignore it. Maybe they shouldn't, but that's another
question.

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou