Re: [O] proposal to have ignoreheading tags/properties

[Mark Edgington]

Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:
 
> Moreover, that task is highly specific; I'm not convinced we should have
> a dedicated keyword for each of them. I'd rather have a simple solution
> for selective export problems, even if, as a generic solution, it may
> look clumsier.

Hi Nicolas,

I agree that the nested use of :export: and :noexport: symmetric is a good
feature to implement.  I think the main point of contention that I and
others may have is that even if the :ignoreexport: (or whatever you wish to
call it) tag is "highly specific" w.r.t. the variety of export/noexport
arrangements one can have, it is also highly useful.

While implementing a specific tag for this task may not be wise to implement
at this time, there should be *some* way that an org-mode user can avoid
being required to manually add export tags to every child of a noexport node
in order to achieve this "summary node" functionality.  In order to make it
possible to add a non-exported summary-node (i.e. a node which we might have
marked as :ignoreexport:) at any location in the tree without needing to add
N more tags for all of the children, one would need to somehow "by default"
have :export: tags implicit on all nodes, unless a :noexport: tag was on a
node which would override the behavior of the :export: tag.

Maybe there needs to be a way to decide whether a specific tag (i.e. on a
specific headline) will be applied recursively or not -- e.g. if the tag has
a "*" suffix appended to it, then it is applied to all descendants
recursively, but otherwise it applies only to the single headline it is on.
 Ultimately I see the problem of having to tag all of the children as
stemming from this default behavior of tags being recursive.  Having control
of their "recursivitiy" would alleviate the problem.

Regards,

Mark