[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [O] [Out-of-Thread] Re: [RFC] Org syntax (draft)
From: |
Aaron Ecay |
Subject: |
Re: [O] [Out-of-Thread] Re: [RFC] Org syntax (draft) |
Date: |
Mon, 18 Mar 2013 23:47:56 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Notmuch/0.15.2+43~ge848af8 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.3.50.1 (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) |
Hi Carsten,
Thank you for your very insightful thoughts. I would like to make one note.
2013ko martxoak 18an, Carsten Dominik-ek idatzi zuen:
> Now to the discussion with Z about additional emphasis definitions
> which he/she uses for custom highlighting of stuff. Right now this
> relies on modifying the emph-alist variable. However, for the purpose
> of in-buffer only highlighting, it is not necessary to go through
> parser-sensitive code. You can do this simply with additions to
> font-lock, for example using font-lock-add-keywords or something like
> this, see also Thorsten's post. If someone wants, I can provide an
> example for Z's case, and we could encapsulate such behavior into a
> little library in contrib, to make it easy to configure such behavior.
> Compromising the parser for this application is not necessary.
I use org to write articles which discuss words in foreign languages.
These need to be distinctively typeset (in italics), and sometimes need
to be set in a special font with coverage for exotic characters. I
would find it very useful to be able to define special emphasis
environments for these words. Using macros feels too much like writing
LaTeX (which I use org to avoid having to write directly, as much as
possible...)
I see the goal of the syntactic standardization as making it easier to
operate with non-emacs tools; as Nicolas said:
> My point of view is the following: Org (as a format) definition
> shouldn't depend on Emacs. It should be totally parseable by any
> language (which is not the case actually, since syntax relies on
> variables defined in Emacs). IOW, we should work to make it a real
> plain-text markup format.
Personally, I am OK with articles I have written for export never being
able to be read by non-emacs tools (as opposed to other uses of org as a
database/schedule/agenda, where the ability to access the information in
other programs/programming languages would be useful). I sympathize
with the goal of making the format accessible to other tools, but I also
think the ability to have within emacs additional flexibility
wrt. formatting (for both display and export) is worth preserving.
--
Aaron Ecay
- Re: [O] [Out-of-Thread] Re: [RFC] Org syntax (draft), zeltak, 2013/03/17
- Re: [O] [Out-of-Thread] Re: [RFC] Org syntax (draft), Carsten Dominik, 2013/03/18
- Re: [O] [Out-of-Thread] Re: [RFC] Org syntax (draft), Thorsten Jolitz, 2013/03/18
- Re: [O] [Out-of-Thread] Re: [RFC] Org syntax (draft), zeltak, 2013/03/18
- Re: [O] [Out-of-Thread] Re: [RFC] Org syntax (draft), W. Greenhouse, 2013/03/18
- Re: [O] [Out-of-Thread] Re: [RFC] Org syntax (draft), Marcin Borkowski, 2013/03/18
- Re: [O] [Out-of-Thread] Re: [RFC] Org syntax (draft), Carsten Dominik, 2013/03/18
- Re: [O] [Out-of-Thread] Re: [RFC] Org syntax (draft), Rasmus, 2013/03/18
- Re: [O] [Out-of-Thread] Re: [RFC] Org syntax (draft),
Aaron Ecay <=
- Re: [O] [Out-of-Thread] Re: [RFC] Org syntax (draft), Nicolas Richard, 2013/03/19
- Re: [O] [Out-of-Thread] Re: [RFC] Org syntax (draft), Nicolas Goaziou, 2013/03/21
- Re: [O] [Out-of-Thread] Re: [RFC] Org syntax (draft), Samuel Wales, 2013/03/19