Hi Nicolas,

This is nice, but it brought a bug, `[N]' in HTML block is recognized as
footnote, e.g.:

#+BEGIN_HTML
ONE[1]
<script>
console.log(v1[0]);
</script>
#+END_HTML

There are two footnotes in the generated HTML. Would you fix this please?

Thanks.




On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Export blocks are blocks dedicated to export back-ends, e.g.,
> "#+BEGIN_LATEX". The way they are currently parsed is flawed.
>
> Export blocks are back-end dependent. At the moment, back-ends register
> their own export block in a variable, `org-element-block-name-alist', so
> the parser can know if it needs to parse an export block or not. As
> a consequence, the same block can be parsed differently if a given
> export back-end is loaded or not. E.g.,
>
>   #+BEGIN_HTML
>   ...
>   #+END_HTML
>
> will be parsed as a `special-block' if "ox-html.el" is not loaded, or an
> `export-block' otherwise. This is slightly... ugly. And it gets worse if
> we include the cache, which will not update the block if it is not
> modified.
>
> I just committed a set of patches that solve the problem: `export-block'
> elements do not exist anymore. Instead, such blocks are now parsed as
> `special-block', always. This does not depend on the libraries loaded so
> far.
>
> Of course, special blocks are not treated exactly as export blocks. The
> latter's contents are included as-is in the output whereas the former's
> are interpreted. Therefore, special blocks now include another
> property, :raw-value, which stores the pristine initial contents of the
> block, and "ox.el" provides a new function,
> `org-export-raw-special-block-p', which tells the difference between
> a former export block and a special block. This makes sense since an
> "export-block" is clearly, and only, an export concept. This is not
> related to Org syntax.
>
> This is more simple to handle than it sounds, and can be described with
> two steps:
>
>   1. `export-block' elements, translators and filters are now ignored.
>      These can be removed from export back-ends (unless you want to
>      preserve compatibility with Org 8.2, in which case leaving them
>      will not hurt: they will be used in Org 8.2 and ignored in Org
>      8.3).
>
>   2. Translators for special blocks, e.g. `org-BACKEND-special-block'
>      need to be updated and check first if current block is a raw
>      special block or not. The following template is a suggestion.
>
>      #+BEGIN_SRC emacs-lisp
>      (defun org-latex-special-block (special-block contents info)
>        (if (org-export-raw-special-block-p special-block info)
>            (org-element-property :raw-value special-block)
>          ;; Usual handling for special blocks goes here.
>          ))
>      #+END_SRC
>
>      Note that if BACKEND is a derived back-end and doesn't implement
>      its own special block translator already, there is nothing to
>      change. The parent back-end will take care of such blocks.
>
>      All back-ends in core and in contrib have been updated this way
>      already.
>
> I included `org-export-raw-special-block-p' in Org 8.2, as
> a forward-compatibility measure, so back-end maintainers do not have to
> do the `fboundp' dance.
>
> BTW, for those in the back of the room: I didn't remove
> "#+BEGIN_LATEX"-like constructs.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Nicolas Goaziou                                                0x80A93738
>
>


-- 
-- 

KDr2, http://kdr2.com