Re: Re: [bug] Problem with Worg (html?) publishing

[Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com>]

Sébastien Vauban <wxhgmqzgwmuf@spammotel.com> wrote:

> >
> > It could use the fact that it is in a <pre> section - but the function
> > is generic wrt backends, so it doesn't worry about details like this.
> > Maybe a backend-specific function can be called at this point to deal
> > with it - and that can be smarter about how to transform it properly.
> 
> A comment from a 30,000 feet view: why looking at <pre>?  Maybe looking at the
> fact it is (still, at that point in time) a LaTeX order in a HTML block?
> 

Well, my view is maybe from 29000 feet, so I'm not sure I can see any
better than you can: the <pre> suggestion was because clearly anything
in a <pre> should not be transformed any further by the HTML exporter;
I'm not sure whether you can make similar (but perhaps somewhat weaker)
statements outside of a <pre>.

> The opposite could be as generic: not interpreting HTML orders when in LaTeX
> blocks?
> 

Yes, the way that is done today is draconian: delete the thing. If it's
not there, it cannot be interpreted. So off with its head! Dead men tell
no tales :-)

You are right: it is a generic problem - writing HTML examples to be
published with LaTeX would lead to the same difficulties.

Nick