Re: Multiple Major Modes

[Lennart Borgman]

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:57 PM, Joe Brenner <doom@kzsu.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> > I've tried this, and I'm seeing syntax coloring in the HTML sections, but
>> > none in the perl sections.  Is that about what you expected?
>>
>>
>> I always expect some unexpected problems ... ;-)
>>
>> But, no, it should of course do syntax coloring etc in the perl
>> sections too. Maybe I have misunderstood something. Can you give me an
>> example, please?
>
> I tried to reproduce it to take a screen shot, but now it's working okay
> for me.  Previously I was seeing a perl section in two-tone, with just
> the html areas colorized.
>
> So this is a problem that only comes up after my emacs has been running
> for awhile (some of my other mumamo experiments have been locking up
> emacs, so I've had to do more fresh restarts than I normally would...).


This can happen if some bug in mumamo is hit. Normally you can get it
working again by just calling the multi major mode again.

However when this happens I would be glad for a bug report. Those bugs
are a bit hard to find so any report may help. Please look in the
message buffer and see if there is any information and then report it
as an nXhtml bug.


>> >> to test it. (BTW, what file extensions do Mason files normally have?)
>> >
>> > The currently recommended Mason file extensions are *.mhtml for internal
>> > components, and *.html for external ones:
>> >
>> >  
>> > http://www.masonhq.com/?FAQ:ServerConfiguration#h-what_filename_extensions_should_i_use_for_mason_components_
>> >
>> > That means, of course that the file extension alone gives you no way to
>> > distinguish between a plain html file and a top-level Mason file.
>>
>> Thanks. I am a bit surprised by the second convention.
>
> The reasoning seems to be that the client is asking for html, and that's
> what you're going to deliver to them... the fact that Mason is used to
> generate the html is an internal detail there's no point in bothering
> them with.

Hm, I see. It is maybe a pretty good reason on that side. But do
clients really care about the URL "file extension"?