From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Frederick Giasson Subject: HTML export with ":export" parameter with Orgmode 9.0 Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 08:30:51 -0500 Message-ID: <74a9bf69-d19e-1528-22ce-f9833d8dd0ed@fgiasson.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38455) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c46UQ-0005tT-5o for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Nov 2016 08:31:06 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c46UM-0002AL-4f for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Nov 2016 08:31:02 -0500 Received: from s052.panelboxmanager.com ([72.55.186.33]:58034) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c46UM-0002A6-0K for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Nov 2016 08:30:58 -0500 Received: from mailnull by s052.panelboxmanager.com with sa-checked (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1c46UG-003aPd-C4 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Nov 2016 08:30:53 -0500 Received: from modemcable199.69-130-66.mc.videotron.ca ([66.130.69.199]:55761 helo=[192.168.0.199]) by s052.panelboxmanager.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1c46UF-003aOs-Vv for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Nov 2016 08:30:52 -0500 Content-Language: en-US List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-orgmode" To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hi, I am not clear about the change in the Export blocks that occurred in Org-mode 9.0 Does this change impact the ":export [...]" code block header parameter? What I am often using is this: http://orgmode.org/manual/Exporting-code-blocks.html Which currently doesn't work but it is unclear from the release notes if it should or not and the code provided to fix the Export blocks doesn't appear to look for this syntax, so I guess it should still be working. Anybody else experience this issue? Thanks, Fred