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: Sun, 01 Jun 2014 13:30:33 +0200 Message-ID: <87r438eujq.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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46538) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Wr3xh-00005l-Ny for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2014 07:30:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Wr3xc-0005Zw-DI for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2014 07:30:01 -0400 Received: from mail-we0-x22f.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c03::22f]:60885) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Wr3xc-0005Zs-5H for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 01 Jun 2014 07:29:56 -0400 Received: by mail-we0-f175.google.com with SMTP id p10so3861115wes.20 for ; Sun, 01 Jun 2014 04:29:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87sinpylly.fsf@Rainer.invalid> (Achim Gratz's message of "Sun, 01 Jun 2014 12:23:21 +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 Achim Gratz writes: > Nicolas Goaziou writes: >> I didn't like the "wrap" parameter because it mixes parsed blocks (e.g., >> wrap quote) and raw blocks (e.g., wrap html). It is important to know if >> the parser should parse the contents of the file or not. Therefore, the >> new syntax, if any, should make it clear. In the current problem, we >> mustn't parse the contents of the file. > > That's the only problem? Aside from "quote" not being an export > backend, I'm afraid I don't really see the difference between > > #+INCLUDE: "file.ext" src results: > > and > > #+INCLUDE: "file.ext" wrap As explained in this thread, it is not necessary to support: #+INCLUDE: "file.ext" wrap center > in this case. We can always check if maps to a valid export > block and drop back to quoting the whole thing like we do with "src" if > not. The "check" part is useless if we assume that any "wrap", "export", "raw" or whatever parameter implies that the contents of the file are specific to an export back-end. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou