From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bastien Subject: Re: [poll] Fontify code in code blocks Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 21:50:37 +0100 Message-ID: <87mwiy1e5e.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> References: <86sisxz6ns.fsf@somewhere.org> <87wqi9ia0w.fsf@gmail.com> <87r48ezx8r.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87y52m7st7.fsf@gmail.com> <86mwj2g39q.fsf@somewhere.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45737) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W3Ax9-0006rs-S5 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 15:51:23 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W3Ax1-0004Fy-Ou for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 15:51:15 -0500 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:37651) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W3Ax1-0004Fr-I5 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 15:51:07 -0500 Received: from public by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1W3Awy-00089X-Vl for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 21:51:04 +0100 In-Reply-To: <86mwj2g39q.fsf@somewhere.org> (Sebastien Vauban's message of "Sat, 11 Jan 2014 12:35:13 +0100") 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-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Sebastien Vauban Cc: public-emacs-orgmode-mXXj517/zsQ@plane.gmane.org When `org-src-fontify-natively' will be `t' by default, it will be important to keep the distinction between source blocks and HTML/LaTeX blocks. So HTML blocks should remain unfontified by default, just to mark the difference with "active" source blocks. I still think an option to highlight them would be nice. > That would be the same for #+HTML/LaTeX one-liners, yes! For this I disagree... this would encourage using such one-liners too much. > Now, I have no idea about what's the work required. But I definitely > would love to see that implemented. Well, it's not hard but not straightforward -- and I'd rather be sure that the decision is to take that route before I try to implement this. Waiting to read what other think. -- Bastien