Hi Carsten, On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 01:27:57PM +0200, Carsten Dominik wrote: > > On Sep 5, 2013, at 12:09 PM, Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> #+/home/matt/Matt_headshots/Matt Price/IMG_9367_.jpg > >>> http://2013.hackinghistory.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/wpid-IMG_9367_2.jpg > >> > >> I don't think this is the right behavior, such lines should not be > >> rendered. > >> Suvayu is right, with a space after the # they are treated as commendt, > >> but I think > >> they should also be ignored with the plus. > >> > >> Nicolas, what is the reasoning behind rendering them? > > > > Because this isn't valid Org syntax, so it is treated as regular text > > (i.e. a paragraph). Something similar happens for unbalanced blocks: > > So in a way this is a "syntax error" message. :) > > OK, I get that point. Is that behaviour documented?
I think it is more of a "I don't recognise this as special syntax; it must be text". In that case, I'm not sure what can be documented, one can have infinitely many text blurbs which look very similar to valid Org syntax but isn't. I have noticed quite a few posts on the list with this kind of misunderstanding. I think the confusion arises from thinking of special keywords like "#+options:", "#+attr_latex:", etc as comments. AFAIU, they are not. Lines starting with "#+" are possible keywords, whereas lines starting with "# " are comments. I can see how that can be confusing, but can't think of a way to resolve this. I have two possibilities in mind: 1. change "# " to something more distict like: "//", or "##", 2. use different faces for the two. (1) is probably too big a change, whereas (2) might be feasible. Nicolas will probably have a better feeling about what is more appropriate here. Cheers, -- Suvayu Open source is the future. It sets us free.