Hi Christian,
Thanks for your reply.
I left implicit the question of whether this can solve OP's problem
also, but believe it is potentially related.
However, if I understood CSS well enough to ask the question
precisely, I'd have the answer. So bear with me.
More below:
On 2012-04-07, Christian Moe <m...@christianmoe.com> wrote:
>> Will CSS solutions described in this thread work if you always export
>> subtrees (not entire .org files) and never include style files?
>
> Yes, CSS styles apply to exported subtrees as well, whether from the
> default stylesheet, linked external stylesheets, or #+STYLE headers.
Hmm, I think I should have specified further. I mean
org-export-region-as-html. The raw HTML without any head section,
files, stylesheets, or anything else.
So for example, could the OP and I use styles that are specified with
div style= wrapping the entire output? Seems a simple addition to the
exporter or even a defadvice, but I don't know if it would work as I
don't know what the CSS would look like well enough to try it.
The critical thing is to avoid all dependency on anything external
like a stylesheet. The goal is to keep all information in your file
under Org control, including style.
> But this applies to the static html files as exported by Org. If I
> understand your drift, you're thinking about using it in a content
> management system (CMS) like Blogger. A CMS will typically store only
> the content of your document and substitute its own template for the
> HEAD section where style information goes. Then these solutions won't
> work without modifying CSS in your CMS.
Not even with wrapping the entire output in a div?
> You can edit the CSS template of your CMS to take advantage of the
> classes and ids Org applies to its HTML exports.
The idea is to avoid a dependency like that if possible.
> - You can use #+ATTR_HTML to add class, id or style attributes to
> /some/ elements, and my understanding is that the new exporter that is
> in the works will help do this more systematically.
Wondering if you can control this under my additional requirements
using inheritance from higher-level constructs like a div wrapper
around the whole export.
> - You can enclose blocks in custom block classes (<DIV CLASS="foo">)
> with org-special-blocks (#+BEGIN_FOO), or with verbatim HTML.
Yes, this is where I was leading. But it's no good for my purposes if
you can't use CSS directly in your Org file without any header or
external files.
> Locally applying CSS to elements with the STYLE attribute, the very
> lowest level of the cascade, should be the last resort.
Right. :)
> - You can simplify repeated use with macros. See the manual, section
> 11.6. Use the @ notation (section 12.5.3) for literal html tags within
> the macros. E.g.:
>
> #+MACRO: mycolor @<span style="color: black; background-color:
> #f4a460">$1@</span>
I've tried macros for image specification, but ran into a variety of
issues getting it to work well.
> {{{mycolor(Here I'd like some black text on an orange background.)}}}
For paragraphs and sections and quotes and so on, the #+ blocks would
work better. Not sure if {{{}}} would nest? Or be noticeable. That
seems much better for spans of text, not so much for standalone images
and sections with more than one paragraph, lists, etc.
> - You could probably also use Eric Schulte's contributed
> org-exp-blocks.el, but you'd need to write some code, and it might be
> overkill for this purpose.
I was wondering if this would be useful too.
> Depends on your use case, I guess, but I think it would nearly always
> be a better, simpler, cleaner solution to modify your Blogger CSS.
OK. But my desire not to depend on the cloud is large enough that I
have to go back to the raw HTML method.
I want this to work no matter who I give the HTML file (singular) to.
Assuming it's possible -- if not I will just keep using raw HTML.
This is not a critical issue, but I thought it could expand the OP's
conversation to include a general solution for everybody if it works.
Samuel
--
The Kafka Pandemic: http://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com
