From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: KDr2 Subject: Re: [ANN] Merge export-block type within special-block Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 23:12:53 +0800 Message-ID: References: <87y4vf0ygz.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87oav0vmv1.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013d0a1c40f5b50503e53de2 Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39531) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XXAjR-0001cF-Vw for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 11:13:23 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XXAjQ-00005x-6P for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 11:13:21 -0400 Received: from mail-oi0-x233.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4003:c06::233]:34419) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XXAjP-00005a-VP for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 11:13:20 -0400 Received: by mail-oi0-f51.google.com with SMTP id h136so2561256oig.10 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 08:13:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87oav0vmv1.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> 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: Org Mode List --089e013d0a1c40f5b50503e53de2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I found this was fixed on both maint and master branch :) Thanks for all your works, but would you tell us how did you do it? or give the commit id? (Sorry I did not find it by myself...) Thank you very much. On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > Hello, > > KDr2 writes: > > > This is nice, but it brought a bug, `[N]' in HTML block is recognized as > > footnote, e.g.: > > > > #+BEGIN_HTML > > ONE[1] > > > > #+END_HTML > > > > There are two footnotes in the generated HTML. Would you fix this > > please? > > Unfortunately, no, I cannot fix it. > > The problem is even deeper. Indeed, my approach is fundamentally wrong: > it is impossible to postpone choosing between parsed or raw data at > export time. This information must be obtained at parsing time. > > Yet, I think syntax should not depend on the libraries loaded. So the > initial problem still needs a solution. > > Special blocks and export blocks are just too similar. We could make > them slightly different. One solution is to mark explicitly blocks meant > to insert raw code. E.g., > > #+BEGIN_SOMETHING :special t > ... > #+END_SOMETHING > > vs > > #+BEGIN_SOMETHING > ... > #+END_SOMETHING > > In the first case contents would be parsed and the block treated as > a special block (i.e. depending on the back-end) whereas in the second > case, contents would be inserted as-is in the buffer, provided target > export back-ends accepts data from "SOMETHING" blocks (IOW "SOMETHING" > = "LATEX" if ox-latex is used). > > This is clearly not backward-compatible. But it only modifies syntax for > special blocks, which, I guess, are much less used than their cousins, > export blocks. The ":special t" may be shorter, too. > > Cc'ing Bastien for his opinion. > > > Regards, > > -- > Nicolas Goaziou > -- -- KDr2, http://kdr2.com --089e013d0a1c40f5b50503e53de2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I found this was fixed on both maint and master branc= h :)
Thanks for all your works, but would you tell us how did you = do it? or give the commit id? (Sorry I did not find it by myself...)
Thank you very much.

On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Nicolas Goaziou <ma= il@nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote:

KDr2 <killy.draw@gmail.com&g= t; writes:

> This is nice, but it brought a bug, `[N]' in HTML block is recogni= zed 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?

Unfortunately, no, I cannot fix it.

The problem is even deeper. Indeed, my approach is fundamentally wrong:
it is impossible to postpone choosing between parsed or raw data at
export time. This information must be obtained at parsing time.

Yet, I think syntax should not depend on the libraries loaded. So the
initial problem still needs a solution.

Special blocks and export blocks are just too similar.=C2=A0 We could make<= br> them slightly different. One solution is to mark explicitly blocks meant to insert raw code. E.g.,

=C2=A0 #+BEGIN_SOMETHING :special t
=C2=A0 ...
=C2=A0 #+END_SOMETHING

vs

=C2=A0 #+BEGIN_SOMETHING
=C2=A0 ...
=C2=A0 #+END_SOMETHING

In the first case contents would be parsed and the block treated as
a special block (i.e. depending on the back-end) whereas in the second
case, contents would be inserted as-is in the buffer, provided target
export back-ends accepts data from "SOMETHING" blocks (IOW "= SOMETHING"
=3D "LATEX" if ox-latex is used).

This is clearly not backward-compatible. But it only modifies syntax for special blocks, which, I guess, are much less used than their cousins,
export blocks. The ":special t" may be shorter, too.

Cc'ing Bastien for his opinion.


Regards,

--
Nicolas Goaziou



--
--=C2=A0
--089e013d0a1c40f5b50503e53de2--