(Btw, that's with the box face attribute set with your patch. Just
playing with it to see if I like it.)

Dan

>
>> Also,
>>
>>> "Eric Schulte" wrote:
>>>> I think that adding a new block delimiter face which inherits from the
>>>> org-meta face as you've suggested is the way to go.
>>>>
>>>> I would recommend however that rather than removing/changing the
>>>> org-meta-line, quote and verse delimiting faces to cover the entire line
>>>> you simply add the org-block-begin/end-line face overtop of these existing
>>>> faces. That way the default behavior is not changed by the patch, and
>>>> users have more control over the final display.
>>>>
>>>> In fact rather than having the org-block-begin/end-line faces inherit from
>>>> org-meta-line why not have them begin as empty faces. Do you think this
>>>> sounds like a good way to go? If so would you mind submitting a patch
>>>> which
>>>> - doesn't remove existing faces but rather adds these new faces overtop
>>>>   of them
>>>> - includes of definition of the org-block-begin/end-line faces to empty
>>>>   faces (otherwise the elisp compiler will warn of references to
>>>>   undefined variables)
>>
>> Could you clarify whether the above suggestions have been adopted or
>> rejected?
>
> I understand you're asking this question, because what you see is *not* the
> final patch, but just a test file for understanding the change and testing it.
>
>> At the moment the code below alters the background color of the begin/end
>> lines by default; but presumably the final version will not alter any
>> appearances by default?
>
> Exactly.
>
>> How will that work?
>
> I realize I did not correctly understood the point of Eric. What I had in mind
> was that the org-block-begin/end-line faces would inherit from org-meta-line
> with no additional feature. So, by default, it will just be a copy of all
> their properties.
>
> It would simplifying the code (well, not a huge deal) in the following way:
> instead of applying first org-meta-line, then org-block-begin/end-line, I
> would just apply the latter.
>
> But I can follow the idea of Eric, now that I just understood it in details,
> if anybody finds it more sensible. I have no position to defend on this
> subject. I'll follow your advice.
>
>> Would you be able to supply a patch, or better, put your work in a
>> publicly accessible git branch? It's hard to see exactly what changes
>> you have made with the full code as below. (Please contact me for write
>> access if you'd like to use the fork at
>> https://github.com/dandavison/org-devel.)
>
> Can you send me whatever required information per private mail (to the address
> you see, that's working!)?
>
> Looking forward to it.
>
> Best regards,
>   Seb