From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Daniel Clemente" Subject: Re: XHTML export -   etc. Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 20:59:46 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20071102121343.GD31416@atlantic.linksys.moosehall> <87sl3oxkep.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87y7de9o23.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87mytqkl9q.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <874pfxv9xx.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Iqa1A-0001hN-9f for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Nov 2007 14:59:52 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Iqa18-0001ck-9R for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Nov 2007 14:59:50 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iqa17-0001c9-EB for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Nov 2007 14:59:49 -0500 Received: from fk-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.128.186]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Iqa16-0003rZ-Rk for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Nov 2007 14:59:49 -0500 Received: by fk-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id 19so701269fkr for ; Fri, 09 Nov 2007 11:59:47 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Bastien Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org I should add that the @at-syntax@: - is too HTML-specific (we need something that exports as good to LaTeX as to HTML) - and sometimes it isn't clear what to write. For instance if I want to write [1] without being processed as a footnote (on a document with footnotes on); something like @[@1@]@ would be too complex. @@Greetings@@ :-) Daniel 2007/11/9, Daniel Clemente : > > > > > - you write C-x 8 SPC in your org files > > > - C-x 8 SPC is exported to   on HTML > > > - C-x 8 SPC is exported to ~ on HTML > > > - ~ continues working normally: produces ~ on HTML and \~{} on LaTeX > > > > 100% okay. And you can add: > > > > - \~ will insert ~ in the LaTeX source > > > Yes > > > > Sometimes the \ means =84don't escape", sometimes not. > > > > Are you okay with this: > > > > Org =3D> LaTeX > > ---------------- > > \~ =3D> ~ > > \% =3D> % > > \# =3D> # > > \{ =3D> { > > \} =3D> } > > \& =3D> & > > \_ =3D> _ > > \^ =3D> ^ > > > > (i.e. preventing special characters from being converted.) > > Mmm... some of those characters /can/ already be written directly > and they won't be interpreted, so you suggest adding a second method > (ex: \# besides # ). Maybe some users find this confusing and prefer > just one way to write each sign. > What do other people think? Should both # and \# write # ? > > But your proposal would convert \ into the generic escaping character. > This is good since then you can always write \% (or with any > character of the list) and you know it will be escaped. > But this is bad because this would only work on the characters you > proposed, not on all. Ex \[ would probably write \[ and not [ > > I would suggest: > 1. Using \# just for signs that are part of org's syntax: _ ^ > 2. Developing a general way to include a literal text without > processing of org's syntax. For instance, the string *word* where both > asterisks should be visible at the exported text (instead of a bold > word). That can be implemented with start-end markers (ex: > some *unprocessed* text) or with a marker before > each sign: (ex: some \*unprocessed\* text). > > 1 and 2 can be combined if \# works with exactly all syntax > elements, that means, all elements which would otherwise change the > meaning and processing of the text. For instance: > \* > \/ > \[ > \] > \# > \| > \=3D > etc. > Of course, also \\ must be present to write a literal \ > For the signs which are not part of org's syntax, you wouldn't need > to write \ Ex: \( is unnecesary since ( has no meaning in org. > > > Sorry for starting anothed discussion :-) > > > Daniel >