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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > > - 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 „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 > _______________________________________________ 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