From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Davison Subject: Re: Re: Worg needs some reorganizing Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 17:41:20 +0000 Message-ID: References: <4CAD81B0.6090807@manor-farm.org> <87bp6ytacd.fsf_-_@stats.ox.ac.uk> <87fwsubckf.fsf@gnu.org> <87aaj2w5x4.fsf@fastmail.fm> <87d3nyuhkw.fsf@altern.org> <87aaj0kggo.fsf@gmail.com> <87zkr0load.fsf@riotblast.dunsmor.com> <87pqrwipjd.fsf@gmail.com> <87oc7glhef.fsf@riotblast.dunsmor.com> <87hbd8ins8.fsf@gmail.com> <87ipxolgji.fsf@riotblast.dunsmor.com> <87aaj0iiff.fsf@gmail.com> <87r5cbk28p.fsf@riotblast.dunsmor.com> <87fwsrtokh.fsf@gnu.org> <87lj2jouz7.fsf@fastmail.fm> <877he2fvw0.fsf@gnu.org> <87fwsqw8u3.fsf@fastmail.fm> <87d3nufa7a.fsf@gmail.com> <87r5cagi6h.fsf@riotblast.dunsmor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=49479 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PfyVi-0008Ix-Nj for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 12:41:28 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PfyVe-0001jF-2b for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 12:41:23 -0500 Received: from mail-pw0-f41.google.com ([209.85.160.41]:44836) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PfyVd-0001is-Ss for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 12:41:22 -0500 Received: by pwj8 with SMTP id 8so217739pwj.0 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 09:41:20 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Jeff Horn Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Jeff Horn wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 6:22 AM, Dan Davison wrot= e: > > I strongly second this. In fact I'll stick my neck out more: Worg is > > great, but for tutorials on org-mode, HTML export is often the wrong > > format for obvious reasons (i.e. unless you go to some trouble, it > > conceals a lot of the org syntax). I'm tempted to suggest that htmlized > > output should be the default format for many org tutorials on Worg. > > I respectfully disagree with your assertion. When someone writes a > document "properly", i.e. in a literate fashion, i.e. using org source > blocks, the right syntax is shown at the right time. So I think we both have babel documents in mind -- i.e. ones with active code blocks. The trouble with using org source blocks to render the org syntax in HTML is that the content must be duplicated. I know from experience that it is easy to let the pedagogical org block get out of sync with its functional counterpart. I did try to choose my words carefully -- I said "tutorials", by which I meant the sort of documents demonstrating Org syntax that can be played with in the org source version. Not talking about the whole of Worg. > > Please see the > manual as an example. Hmm? The manual is written in texinfo. > > Now, I'm no fan of nerfing choices in order to force anyone to do > things "The Right Way (tm)", but it bears mentioning. > > I see no harm in publishing using org-publish-org-to-org with htmlize. > We could even add a link in the footer or header of each page that > links to the htmlized source. I do *not* agree in making it the > "default format" for any page. To see examples of a document that would work better in htmlized format, look no further than http://orgmode.org/worg/org-contrib/babel/intro.html Scroll down to the ditaa section and infelicities start to appear. Someone (Eric or Tom) has done a good job of trying to make sure that an org src counterpart exists for each source block, but that is (a) hard work, (b) error prone and (c) cumbersome (what's the point of the non org src version?). And in the places which they missed, the document doesn't work well. E.g. look at the=A0"Capturing the Results of Code Evaluation" section. Those two blocks are formatted in HTML only and its all a bit baffling as they appear the same (can't see the header args, which are the whole point of the example). All of which could be solved with some effort. My point is: what does the HTML export of this document really offer over the verbatim htmlized one? Dan > > -- > Jeffrey Horn > http://www.failuretorefrain.com/jeff/