Re: XHTML export -   etc.

["Eddward DeVilla" <eddward@gmail.com>]

I feel tempted to bring up my suggestion of [markup|text] format
again, but I've been resisting because I feel like a develish nag.  So
[*|at-syntax] could still be html specific if you really want
something html specific, but there would be something that could be
portable to all export formats.  It would just be a matter of deciding
what 'org' marks should be supported and making sure exporters try to
support them.  And of course there are other ways to get around *at
syntax*.

Edd

On Nov 9, 2007 1:59 PM, Daniel Clemente <n142857@gmail.com> wrote:
> I should add that the @<em>at-syntax@</em>:
> -  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 @<span>[@</span>1@<span>]@</span> would
> be too complex.
>
>
> @<strong>@<em>Greetings@</em>@</strong> :-)
> Daniel
>
>
> 2007/11/9, Daniel Clemente <n142857@gmail.com>:
>
> > >
> > > >  - you write C-x 8 SPC in your org files
> > > >  - C-x 8 SPC is exported to &nbsp; 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 „don't escape", sometimes not.
> > >
> > > Are you okay with this:
> > >
> > >  Org  =>  LaTeX
> > > ----------------
> > >   \~  =>  ~
> > >   \%  =>  %
> > >   \#  =>  #
> > >   \{  =>  {
> > >   \}  =>  }
> > >   \&  =>  &
> > >   \_  =>  _
> > >   \^  =>  ^
> > >
> > > (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:
> > <literal>some *unprocessed* text</literal>) 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:
> > \*
> > \/
> > \[
> > \]
> > \#
> > \|
> > \=
> > 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
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
>