On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Dan Davison <dandavis...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Jeff Horn <jrhorn...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 6:22 AM, Dan Davison <dandavis...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > I strongly second this. In fact I'll stick my neck out more: Worg is >> > great, but for tutorials on org-mode, HTML export is often the wrong >> > format for obvious reasons (i.e. unless you go to some trouble, it >> > conceals a lot of the org syntax). I'm tempted to suggest that htmlized >> > output should be the default format for many org tutorials on Worg. >> >> I respectfully disagree with your assertion. When someone writes a >> document "properly", i.e. in a literate fashion, i.e. using org source >> blocks, the right syntax is shown at the right time. > > So I think we both have babel documents in mind -- i.e. ones with > active code blocks. The trouble with using org source blocks to render > the org syntax in HTML is that the content must be duplicated. I know > from experience that it is easy to let the pedagogical org block get > out of sync with its functional counterpart.
Another possibility is that a new header arg (perhaps ":exports org") could be added to babel, which would have the effect of wrapping the block in an org src block on export. > I did try to choose my > words carefully -- I said "tutorials", by which I meant the sort of > documents demonstrating Org syntax that can be played with in the org > source version. Not talking about the whole of Worg. > >> >> Please see the >> manual as an example. > > Hmm? The manual is written in texinfo. > >> >> Now, I'm no fan of nerfing choices in order to force anyone to do >> things "The Right Way (tm)", but it bears mentioning. >> >> I see no harm in publishing using org-publish-org-to-org with htmlize. >> We could even add a link in the footer or header of each page that >> links to the htmlized source. I do *not* agree in making it the >> "default format" for any page. > > To see examples of a document that would work better in htmlized > format, look no further than > > http://orgmode.org/worg/org-contrib/babel/intro.html > > Scroll down to the ditaa section and infelicities start to appear. > Someone (Eric or Tom) has done a good job of trying to make sure that > an org src counterpart exists for each source block, but that is (a) > hard work, (b) error prone and (c) cumbersome (what's the point of the > non org src version?). > > And in the places which they missed, the document doesn't work well. > E.g. look at the "Capturing the Results of Code Evaluation" section. > Those two blocks are formatted in HTML only and its all a bit baffling > as they appear the same (can't see the header args, which are the > whole point of the example). > > All of which could be solved with some effort. My point is: what does > the HTML export of this document really offer over the verbatim > htmlized one? > > Dan > >> >> -- >> Jeffrey Horn >> http://www.failuretorefrain.com/jeff/ > _______________________________________________ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
