Xiao-Yong Jin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Eddward DeVilla [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
About escaping characters in LaTeX, here is the rule I'm trying to stick
to:
1. If a character is a special character in LaTeX, org-export-latex.el
will escape it (so that this character will be correctly displayed in
the resulting .dvi.)
2. If you escape such a character in the Org
- you write C-x 8 SPC in your org files
- C-x 8 SPC is exported to nbsp; 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
I should add that the @emat-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
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.
Eddward DeVilla [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
If you use C-x 8 SPC in a text file, you probably want to export it
as ~ in LaTeX, not to include that Unicode character directly.
This is what i suggested.
Ok, I misunderstood because you said „so we should avoid to handle
this in Org source file
But this conversion is a strange
Daniel Clemente [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you use C-x 8 SPC in a text file, you probably want to export it
as ~ in LaTeX, not to include that Unicode character directly.
This is what i suggested.
But this conversion is a strange one,
Why?
therefore it may be besser to offer a
Daniel Clemente [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- you write C-x 8 SPC in your org files
- C-x 8 SPC is exported to nbsp; 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
Daniel Clemente [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sorry, I wanted to say the symbol for „*nonbreaking space* could be
\~ , instead of just ~
I think this would be weird.
By nonbreaking character, I meant the output of C-x 8 SPC (try it).
This is iso-8859-1, not ascii, so we should avoid to handle
On 11/3/07, Bastien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
William Henney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here is what I have managed to work out. Apologies for answering in
org syntax :)
Hey this is great. I ♥ typesetting :)
Me too. And the possibilities for new smilies are endless:
•⋖
⌣
Cheers
Will
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 03:26:19PM +, Bastien wrote:
Adam Spiers [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Another XHTML export question - is it possible to export special
symbols such as nbsp; ? If not, perhaps the @ syntax could be
extended from simple tags to these too, i.e. @nbsp; ?
Have a
Oops!
-- : dash, not hyphen :-)
„hyphen is -
___
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
Hi,
Bastien suggested in other thread adding ~ to get a „protected
space in LaTeX, and now I discover that a \nbsp is also to get a
protected space in HTML. So why can't we use the same syntax for
LaTeX and HTML?
Some other similar signs:
\- : breaking allowed
~ : protected space
--
Adam Spiers [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Another XHTML export question - is it possible to export special
symbols such as nbsp; ? If not, perhaps the @ syntax could be
extended from simple tags to these too, i.e. @nbsp; ?
Have a look at `org-html-entities'.
You can use \nbsp in Org source
Adam Spiers [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You can use \nbsp in Org source file, it'll be converted to nbsp;
smoothly.
Perfect, thanks! Probably worth adding this to the docs?
Yes, you're right.
I guess (info (org)Enhancing text) is the appropriate place for that.
--
Bastien
Daniel Clemente [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bastien suggested in other thread adding ~ to get a „protected
space in LaTeX, and now I discover that a \nbsp is also to get a
protected space in HTML. So why can't we use the same syntax for
LaTeX and HTML?
Some other similar signs:
\- :
Hi list
On 11/2/07, Bastien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure about the the last two columns. Maybe it's simpler to
let -- and --- be -- and --- in HTML output as well.
Shouldn't they be `endash;' and `emdash;' in HTML?
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/dtds.html#a_dtd_Symbols
Cheers
Will
Shouldn't they be `endash;' and `emdash;' in HTML?
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/dtds.html#a_dtd_Symbols
You mean ndash; and mdash;
ndash; and mdash; for -- and --- respectively is ok. I think there
exist no and -
shy; with \-and nbsp; with ~ are also good... There exists
I don't know if ~ is a good election. It should be looked for
inside of words (li~ke this), but probably excluding URLs. Maybe that
causes more problems to the users who want to write a literal ~.
I also think this is too complex.
The symbol for „breaking allowed could also be \~ ...
On 11/2/07, Daniel Clemente [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shouldn't they be `endash;' and `emdash;' in HTML?
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/dtds.html#a_dtd_Symbols
You mean ndash; and mdash;
Yes. Thanks for the correction.
Personally, I tend to just use the unicode characters directly in my
21 matches
Mail list logo
