From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
Subject: Re: [ANN] Merge export-block type within special-block
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 14:56:34 +0200
Message-ID: <87oav0vmv1.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
References: <87y4vf0ygz.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
	<CAHfjm6hRE0SiqmQLQuSZcn3TyotC=HjLqoaWhHZTzWm=t-fazQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60310)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>) id 1XO4fz-0003JD-1Q
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 08:56:21 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>) id 1XO4fo-000818-Sg
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 08:56:10 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAHfjm6hRE0SiqmQLQuSZcn3TyotC=HjLqoaWhHZTzWm=t-fazQ@mail.gmail.com>
	(KDr2's message of "Fri, 29 Aug 2014 22:02:47 +0800")
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=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: KDr2 <killy.draw@gmail.com>
Cc: Bastien Guerry <bzg@gnu.org>, Org Mode List <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>

Hello,

KDr2 <killy.draw@gmail.com> writes:

> This is nice, but it brought a bug, `[N]' in HTML block is recognized as
> footnote, e.g.:
>
> #+BEGIN_HTML
> ONE[1]
> <script>
> console.log(v1[0]);
> </script>
> #+END_HTML
>
> There are two footnotes in the generated HTML. Would you fix this
> please?

Unfortunately, no, I cannot fix it.

The problem is even deeper. Indeed, my approach is fundamentally wrong:
it is impossible to postpone choosing between parsed or raw data at
export time. This information must be obtained at parsing time.

Yet, I think syntax should not depend on the libraries loaded. So the
initial problem still needs a solution.

Special blocks and export blocks are just too similar.  We could make
them slightly different. One solution is to mark explicitly blocks meant
to insert raw code. E.g.,

  #+BEGIN_SOMETHING :special t
  ...
  #+END_SOMETHING

vs

  #+BEGIN_SOMETHING
  ...
  #+END_SOMETHING

In the first case contents would be parsed and the block treated as
a special block (i.e. depending on the back-end) whereas in the second
case, contents would be inserted as-is in the buffer, provided target
export back-ends accepts data from "SOMETHING" blocks (IOW "SOMETHING"
= "LATEX" if ox-latex is used).

This is clearly not backward-compatible. But it only modifies syntax for
special blocks, which, I guess, are much less used than their cousins,
export blocks. The ":special t" may be shorter, too.

Cc'ing Bastien for his opinion.


Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou