From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Carsten Dominik Subject: Re: text color + highlight Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 09:06:38 +0200 Message-ID: <532CED92-88AD-46F6-BC67-9D0DEDAA6D71@gmail.com> References: <87pqxw5cb1.fsf@gnu.org> <87mxszcsuv.fsf@gmail.com> <87d3tvru38.fsf@gmail.com> <87iq3kkef1.fsf@gmail.com> <4C60EE48.6030106@christianmoe.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=58973 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Oij8b-0007MS-H9 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Aug 2010 03:20:44 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Oiiv5-0001Yo-Bf for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Aug 2010 03:06:44 -0400 Received: from mail-ey0-f169.google.com ([209.85.215.169]:57112) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Oiiv5-0001Yi-7H for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Aug 2010 03:06:43 -0400 Received: by eydd26 with SMTP id d26so4048280eyd.0 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 2010 00:06:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4C60EE48.6030106@christianmoe.com> 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: mail@christianmoe.com Cc: Vinh Nguyen , emacs-orgmode@gnu.org, Bastien 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 > >> > >> highlighted text > >> > >> - 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 > 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