"Thomas S. Dye" <[email protected]> writes: > The ditaa and dot documents didn't require =:eval yes=. I've edited > them so they look fine without evaluation.
OK. Ditaa seems not to raise issues, though. > The elisp and org documents are structured differently (...) > Also, these two languages are self-referential in ways that I find > perplexing---I haven't convinced myself that =:eval yes= can be > removed :( Neither seems to raise issues anyway, so let's leave that alone for the moment. >>> Christian, I'm happy to edit the ob-doc-*.org files to standardize. >>> If the CI approach is better, then I'm happy with that, too. >> >> Thanks for the offer, but I don't think we need to standardize. We >> can >> solve specific problems as we find them. > > Agreed. > > I'm thinking about standardization mostly in case the ob-doc-* > documentation is added to the Org manual, but a uniform look and feel > on Worg would be nice, too. A solution that looks good on Worg and > ports easily to the Org manual would be best. Right, that's a point in favor of standardization that I didn't consider. What's the thinking on how Babel language docs should look in the manual? Should images be used at all? Can/should live src blocks be used in org-manual.org? I see the current Babel examples in org-manual.org wrap src blocks and results in #+begin_example with Org keywords comma-escaped. Yours, Christian
