Re: syntax for blocks that the exporter should not render?

[Suvayu Ali <fatkasuvayu+linux@gmail.com>]

Hi Carsten,

On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 01:27:57PM +0200, Carsten Dominik wrote:
> 
> On Sep 5, 2013, at 12:09 PM, Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaziou@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >>> #+/home/matt/Matt_headshots/Matt Price/IMG_9367_.jpg
> >>> http://2013.hackinghistory.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/wpid-IMG_9367_2.jpg
> >> 
> >> I don't think this is the right behavior, such lines should not be rendered.
> >> Suvayu is right, with a space after the # they are treated as commendt, but I think
> >> they should also be ignored with the plus.
> >> 
> >> Nicolas, what is the reasoning behind rendering them?
> > 
> > Because this isn't valid Org syntax, so it is treated as regular text
> > (i.e. a paragraph). Something similar happens for unbalanced blocks:
> 
> So in a way this is a "syntax error" message. :)
> 
> OK, I get that point.  Is that behaviour documented?

I think it is more of a "I don't recognise this as special syntax; it
must be text".  In that case, I'm not sure what can be documented, one
can have infinitely many text blurbs which look very similar to valid
Org syntax but isn't.

I have noticed quite a few posts on the list with this kind of
misunderstanding.  I think the confusion arises from thinking of special
keywords like "#+options:", "#+attr_latex:", etc as comments.  AFAIU,
they are not.  Lines starting with "#+" are possible keywords, whereas
lines starting with "# " are comments.

I can see how that can be confusing, but can't think of a way to resolve
this.  I have two possibilities in mind:
1. change "# " to something more distict like: "//", or "##",
2. use different faces for the two.

(1) is probably too big a change, whereas (2) might be feasible.

Nicolas will probably have a better feeling about what is more
appropriate here.

Cheers,

-- 
Suvayu

Open source is the future. It sets us free.