Re: Re: Worg needs some reorganizing

[Jeff Horn <jrhorn424@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Dan Davison <dandavison7@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Dan Davison <dandavison7@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Jeff Horn <jrhorn424@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 6:22 AM, Dan Davison <dandavison7@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > I strongly second this. In fact I'll stick my neck out more: Worg is
>>> > great, but for tutorials on org-mode, HTML export is often the wrong
>>> > format for obvious reasons (i.e. unless you go to some trouble, it
>>> > conceals a lot of the org syntax). I'm tempted to suggest that htmlized
>>> > output should be the default format for many org tutorials on Worg.
>>>
>>> I respectfully disagree with your assertion. When someone writes a
>>> document "properly", i.e. in a literate fashion, i.e. using org source
>>> blocks, the right syntax is shown at the right time.
>>
>> So I think we both have babel documents in mind -- i.e. ones with
>> active code blocks. The trouble with using org source blocks to render
>> the org syntax in HTML is that the content must be duplicated. I know
>> from experience that it is easy to let the pedagogical org block get
>> out of sync with its functional counterpart.
>
> Another possibility is that a new header arg (perhaps ":exports org")
> could be added to babel, which would have the effect of wrapping the
> block in an org src block on export.

That's quite elegant. Certainly takes the tedium out of fixing already
broken pages.

-- 
Jeffrey Horn
http://www.failuretorefrain.com/jeff/