From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Goaziou Subject: Re: #+INCLUDE: myfile.html html does not include /literally/; Org processes Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 22:37:51 +0200 Message-ID: <87egz5pw4g.fsf@gmail.com> References: <538AA6B8.40604@gmail.com> <8761kl12w9.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <87bnudf2u4.fsf@gmail.com> <87wqd1yo84.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <8738fpeyov.fsf@gmail.com> <87sinpylly.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <87r438eujq.fsf@gmail.com> <87iookzsto.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <87fvjoenlt.fsf@gmail.com> <87egz8zowa.fsf@Rainer.invalid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45089) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WrvSR-0000m4-Cr for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2014 16:37:24 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WrvSM-00043m-0n for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2014 16:37:19 -0400 Received: from mail-wg0-x234.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c00::234]:45198) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WrvSL-00043T-PW for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2014 16:37:13 -0400 Received: by mail-wg0-f52.google.com with SMTP id l18so7283235wgh.23 for ; Tue, 03 Jun 2014 13:37:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87egz8zowa.fsf@Rainer.invalid> (Achim Gratz's message of "Sun, 01 Jun 2014 16:27:01 +0200") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Achim Gratz Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hello, Achim Gratz writes: > I'm not wedded to the name, maybe "export" has a nicer ring to it (but > that#s also been used differently in Babel, just like almost anything > else you#d be able to come up with). True. > What I'm talking about is the list of blocks that never can be export > blocks (CENTER, QUOTE, SRC, COMMENT, EXAMPLE, VERSE). These can be > flagged as errors, anything else is the responsibility of the user. On second thought, we shouldn't bother too much about it, let the user provide any keyword, and turn it into a block of the same name. So, for example, both #+include: "file.html" html and #+include: "file.html" center are valid, even though the second one makes little sense. It is close to your initial approach, minus the "wrap" keyword, which seems unnecessary. If you agree with this suggestion, do you volunteer to finalize it, along with the required documentation? Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou