Re: text color + highlight

[Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com>]

Hi,

Can we please first read Samuels post about extensible syntax?  Before  
we invent 20 other new syntaxes?

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.orgmode/10204/focus=10204

Thanks!

On Aug 10, 2010, at 8:14 AM, Christian Moe wrote:

> Hi,
>
> >>
> >> - this would be extensible, e.g.
> >>
> >>  [background[yellow] highlighted text]
> >>
> >>  could export to the following html
> >>
> >>  <span "style=background:yellow;">highlighted text</span>
> >>
> >> - this would avoid "{}"s
> >>
> >> - this would look more "org-like" than the pure latex solution
> >>
> >> the only issue with the above is that it may conflate a new / 
> markup/
> >> syntax with org-mode's existing /link/ syntax.
> >>
> >> Thoughts? -- Eric
>
> I'd like an extensible inline markup construct (not primarily for  
> coloring).
>
> Would it make sense to hijack custom links for this purpose, and use  
> existing bracketed link syntax rather than add a new syntax?
>
> For semantic tagging (my chief interest), one might e.g. define a  
> `class' link type and an HTML export handler to wrap the contents in  
> <span class="kewyord"> tags.
>
> : [[class:animals][some text about animals]]
>
> As for color: If one is satisfied with getting colors on export,  
> defining a `color' link type and appropriate export handlers will do.
>
> : [[color:red][some colored text]]
>
> If one also wants the text to appear in the right color within Org- 
> mode, and does not want the pseudo-link markup to be underlined and  
> look like links, it would require additional Org functionality (I  
> think): User-defined custom faces for different link types.
>
>>>> What syntax to use...
>>>
>>> I've thought briefly about the following syntax
>>>
>>> [color[red] text to be colored red]
>> Nope, I am against this syntax.  If we introduce a more general  
>> syntax,
>> then it should be done in the way Samuel proposed.  WHich means
>> we firs get a keyword indtroducing the piece, and then properties.
>> Like
>>   $[style :color red the red text]
>> or
>>   $[face :color :italic t red the red text]
>> Something like the $ before "[" also would seem critical to  
>> disambiguate
>> from other uses of "[".
>> However, I am not too excited about extra syntax to get this kind  
>> of thing.
>> Would not oppose it, but probably never use it.
>> - Carsten
>
> Those examples are not very readable IMO -- without a separator it's  
> hard to see where the property values end and the marked up text  
> begins.
>
> Yours,
> Christian

- Carsten