[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [O] [ANN] Merge export-block type within special-block

From: KDr2
Subject: Re: [O] [ANN] Merge export-block type within special-block
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 23:12:53 +0800

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 <address@hidden> wrote:

KDr2 <address@hidden> writes:

> This is nice, but it brought a bug, `[N]' in HTML block is recognized as
> footnote, e.g.:
> ONE[1]
> <script>
> console.log(v1[0]);
> </script>
> 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



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.


Nicolas Goaziou


KDr2, http://kdr2.com

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]