"Generic" Source block language specification?

"Generic" Source block language specification?

[Rainer M Krug]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi

I have in a document a definition of a projection, which is essentially a text as follow:

#+BEGIN_src
  +proj=aea +lat_1=-28.25
          +lat_2=-29.75
          +lat_0=29
          +lon_0=30.75
          +x_0=0
          +y_0=0
          +datum=WGS84
          +units=m
          +no_defs
#+END_src

Now this does obviously not export, as the source block language is missing. Is there a way that I
can get the same formating of the source in the exportes output but without the syntax highlighting?

BEGIN_EXAMPLE
END_EXAMPLE

is similar, but I would like the block to be formated as the SRC blocks.

Thanks,

Rainer

- -- 
Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology, UCT), Dipl. Phys.
(Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Tel :       +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell:       +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax :       +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

Fax (D):    +49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

email:      Rainer@krugs.de

Skype:      RMkrug
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlCs4F8ACgkQoYgNqgF2egpPpACfXJXUHN58kG2geD0AfJXm0/uD
yEQAnRQHlfgj5tZ5zjPNd1Bkt+JiDlP5
=rkEH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: "Generic" Source block language specification?

[Eric Schulte]

Rainer M Krug <r.m.krug@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi
>
> I have in a document a definition of a projection, which is essentially a text as follow:
>
> #+BEGIN_src
>   +proj=aea +lat_1=-28.25
>           +lat_2=-29.75
>           +lat_0=29
>           +lon_0=30.75
>           +x_0=0
>           +y_0=0
>           +datum=WGS84
>           +units=m
>           +no_defs
> #+END_src
>
> Now this does obviously not export, as the source block language is missing. Is there a way that I
> can get the same formating of the source in the exportes output but without the syntax highlighting?
>
> BEGIN_EXAMPLE
> END_EXAMPLE
>
> is similar, but I would like the block to be formated as the SRC blocks.
>

I bet "fundamental" would work, e.g.,

#+begin_src fundamental
  +proj=aea +lat_1=-28.25
          +lat_2=-29.75
          +lat_0=29
          +lon_0=30.75
          +x_0=0
          +y_0=0
          +datum=WGS84
          +units=m
          +no_defs
#+end_src

>
> Thanks,
>
> Rainer

-- 
Eric Schulte
http://cs.unm.edu/~eschulte

Re: "Generic" Source block language specification?

[Rainer M Krug]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 23/11/12 00:17, Eric Schulte wrote:
> Rainer M Krug <r.m.krug@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Hi
>> 
>> I have in a document a definition of a projection, which is essentially a text as follow:
>> 
>> #+BEGIN_src +proj=aea +lat_1=-28.25 +lat_2=-29.75 +lat_0=29 +lon_0=30.75 +x_0=0 +y_0=0 
>> +datum=WGS84 +units=m +no_defs #+END_src
>> 
>> Now this does obviously not export, as the source block language is missing. Is there a way
>> that I can get the same formating of the source in the exportes output but without the syntax
>> highlighting?
>> 
>> BEGIN_EXAMPLE END_EXAMPLE
>> 
>> is similar, but I would like the block to be formated as the SRC blocks.
>> 
> 
> I bet "fundamental" would work, e.g.,

Yes, it does - works perfectly. Is this documented?

Thanks,

Rainer

> 
> #+begin_src fundamental +proj=aea +lat_1=-28.25 +lat_2=-29.75 +lat_0=29 +lon_0=30.75 +x_0=0 
> +y_0=0 +datum=WGS84 +units=m +no_defs #+end_src
> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Rainer
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlCvMSIACgkQoYgNqgF2egpKrQCdFYFJKZ/f7Ix+XOrO3sv2qpno
wwoAnjz66rQYFBr0+Wr699pdrBx8aGT1
=NPZQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: "Generic" Source block language specification?

[Eric Schulte]

Rainer M Krug <r.m.krug@gmail.com> writes:

> On 23/11/12 00:17, Eric Schulte wrote:
>> Rainer M Krug <r.m.krug@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Hi
>>> 
>>> I have in a document a definition of a projection, which is essentially a text as follow:
>>> 
>>> #+BEGIN_src +proj=aea +lat_1=-28.25 +lat_2=-29.75 +lat_0=29 +lon_0=30.75 +x_0=0 +y_0=0 
>>> +datum=WGS84 +units=m +no_defs #+END_src
>>> 
>>> Now this does obviously not export, as the source block language is missing. Is there a way
>>> that I can get the same formating of the source in the exportes output but without the syntax
>>> highlighting?
>>> 
>>> BEGIN_EXAMPLE END_EXAMPLE
>>> 
>>> is similar, but I would like the block to be formated as the SRC blocks.
>>> 
>> 
>> I bet "fundamental" would work, e.g.,
>
> Yes, it does - works perfectly. Is this documented?
>

Yes.  Whatever language string is placed at the top of the source block
will define the mode used for export and in-block editing.  I believe
that is documented.

Cheers,

>
> Thanks,
>
> Rainer
>
>> 
>> #+begin_src fundamental +proj=aea +lat_1=-28.25 +lat_2=-29.75 +lat_0=29 +lon_0=30.75 +x_0=0 
>> +y_0=0 +datum=WGS84 +units=m +no_defs #+end_src
>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Rainer
>> 
>

-- 
Eric Schulte
http://cs.unm.edu/~eschulte

Re: "Generic" Source block language specification?

[Rainer M Krug]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 23/11/12 16:02, Eric Schulte wrote:
> Rainer M Krug <r.m.krug@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On 23/11/12 00:17, Eric Schulte wrote:
>>> Rainer M Krug <r.m.krug@gmail.com> writes:
>>> 
>>>> Hi
>>>> 
>>>> I have in a document a definition of a projection, which is essentially a text as
>>>> follow:
>>>> 
>>>> #+BEGIN_src +proj=aea +lat_1=-28.25 +lat_2=-29.75 +lat_0=29 +lon_0=30.75 +x_0=0 +y_0=0 
>>>> +datum=WGS84 +units=m +no_defs #+END_src
>>>> 
>>>> Now this does obviously not export, as the source block language is missing. Is there a
>>>> way that I can get the same formating of the source in the exportes output but without
>>>> the syntax highlighting?
>>>> 
>>>> BEGIN_EXAMPLE END_EXAMPLE
>>>> 
>>>> is similar, but I would like the block to be formated as the SRC blocks.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> I bet "fundamental" would work, e.g.,
>> 
>> Yes, it does - works perfectly. Is this documented?
>> 
> 
> Yes.  Whatever language string is placed at the top of the source block will define the mode
> used for export and in-block editing.  I believe that is documented.

OK - then I thought that I can use all languages *for formating* which are defined in the listings
package in LaTeX, but it doesn't matter what I take: it always formats it in as a source block but
obviously without syntax highlighting.

For editing: C-c ' only works ehen using "fundamental" - other non-existent languages are not
accepted (obviously).

So I assume in org, there is support for "fundamental", but I could not find it in the
documentation when I looked.

At the moment, my org info documentation seems to be not accessible (blank page when opening it).

Cheers,

Rainer

> 
> Cheers,
> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Rainer
>> 
>>> 
>>> #+begin_src fundamental +proj=aea +lat_1=-28.25 +lat_2=-29.75 +lat_0=29 +lon_0=30.75 +x_0=0
>>>  +y_0=0 +datum=WGS84 +units=m +no_defs #+end_src
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> 
>>>> Rainer
>>> 
>> 
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlCvlaMACgkQoYgNqgF2egpgFgCeP7BZGpBUv1uU+tIzaFy4XvH5
C3gAn1ri7W9R4OJEKHq/RpVAELcFvpyM
=Ezlp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: "Generic" Source block language specification?

[Eric Schulte]

Rainer M Krug <r.m.krug@gmail.com> writes:

> On 23/11/12 16:02, Eric Schulte wrote:
>> Rainer M Krug <r.m.krug@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> On 23/11/12 00:17, Eric Schulte wrote:
>>>> Rainer M Krug <r.m.krug@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi
>>>>> 
>>>>> I have in a document a definition of a projection, which is essentially a text as
>>>>> follow:
>>>>> 
>>>>> #+BEGIN_src +proj=aea +lat_1=-28.25 +lat_2=-29.75 +lat_0=29 +lon_0=30.75 +x_0=0 +y_0=0 
>>>>> +datum=WGS84 +units=m +no_defs #+END_src
>>>>> 
>>>>> Now this does obviously not export, as the source block language is missing. Is there a
>>>>> way that I can get the same formating of the source in the exportes output but without
>>>>> the syntax highlighting?
>>>>> 
>>>>> BEGIN_EXAMPLE END_EXAMPLE
>>>>> 
>>>>> is similar, but I would like the block to be formated as the SRC blocks.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I bet "fundamental" would work, e.g.,
>>> 
>>> Yes, it does - works perfectly. Is this documented?
>>> 
>> 
>> Yes.  Whatever language string is placed at the top of the source block will define the mode
>> used for export and in-block editing.  I believe that is documented.
>
> OK - then I thought that I can use all languages *for formating* which are defined in the listings
> package in LaTeX, but it doesn't matter what I take: it always formats it in as a source block but
> obviously without syntax highlighting.
>
> For editing: C-c ' only works ehen using "fundamental" - other non-existent languages are not
> accepted (obviously).
>
> So I assume in org, there is support for "fundamental", but I could not find it in the
> documentation when I looked.
>

When editing a code block, Org-mode will take the name of the language,
append "-mode", and then try to call the result as a function.  So for
example, an R code block will call "R-mode" to edit the contents using
R-mode.  Thus any *-mode is a valid code block name.

>
> At the moment, my org info documentation seems to be not accessible
>(blank page when opening it).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rainer
>
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Rainer
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> #+begin_src fundamental +proj=aea +lat_1=-28.25 +lat_2=-29.75 +lat_0=29 +lon_0=30.75 +x_0=0
>>>>  +y_0=0 +datum=WGS84 +units=m +no_defs #+end_src
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Rainer
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>

-- 
Eric Schulte
http://cs.unm.edu/~eschulte

Re: "Generic" Source block language specification?

[Nick Dokos]

Rainer M Krug <r.m.krug@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 23/11/12 16:02, Eric Schulte wrote:
> > Rainer M Krug <r.m.krug@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> On 23/11/12 00:17, Eric Schulte wrote:
> >>> Rainer M Krug <r.m.krug@gmail.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi
> >>>>
> >>>> I have in a document a definition of a projection, which is essentially a text as
> >>>> follow:
> >>>>
> >>>> #+BEGIN_src +proj=aea +lat_1=-28.25 +lat_2=-29.75 +lat_0=29 +lon_0=30.75 +x_0=0 +y_0=0
> >>>> +datum=WGS84 +units=m +no_defs #+END_src
> >>>>
> >>>> Now this does obviously not export, as the source block language is missing. Is there a
> >>>> way that I can get the same formating of the source in the exportes output but without
> >>>> the syntax highlighting?
> >>>>
> >>>> BEGIN_EXAMPLE END_EXAMPLE
> >>>>
> >>>> is similar, but I would like the block to be formated as the SRC blocks.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I bet "fundamental" would work, e.g.,
> >>
> >> Yes, it does - works perfectly. Is this documented?
> >>
> >
> > Yes.  Whatever language string is placed at the top of the source block will define the mode
> > used for export and in-block editing.  I believe that is documented.
> 
> OK - then I thought that I can use all languages *for formating* which are defined in the listings
> package in LaTeX, but it doesn't matter what I take: it always formats it in as a source block but
> obviously without syntax highlighting.
> 
> For editing: C-c ' only works ehen using "fundamental" - other non-existent languages are not
> accepted (obviously).
> 
> So I assume in org, there is support for "fundamental", but I could not find it in the
> documentation when I looked.
> 
> At the moment, my org info documentation seems to be not accessible (blank page when opening it).
> 

In order for this to work, emacs has to have a mode to handle it:
"fundamental" as a language works, because emacs has a mode called
fundamental-mode.

I append the relevant portion of the documentation (section 14.2,
Editing source code) I hope it comes in useful until you get your info
problems resolved, but note that it's also available online at

   http://orgmode.org/org.html#Editing-source-code

See org-src-lang-modes below for the details:

,----
| 
| 14.2 Editing source code
| ========================
| 
| Use `C-c '' to edit the current code block.  This brings up a language
| major-mode edit buffer containing the body of the code block.  Saving
| this buffer will write the new contents back to the Org buffer.  Use
| `C-c '' again to exit.
| 
|    The `org-src-mode' minor mode will be active in the edit buffer.  The
| following variables can be used to configure the behavior of the edit
| buffer.  See also the customization group `org-edit-structure' for
| further configuration options.
| 
| `org-src-lang-modes'
|      If an Emacs major-mode named `<lang>-mode' exists, where `<lang>'
|      is the language named in the header line of the code block, then
|      the edit buffer will be placed in that major-mode.  This variable
|      can be used to map arbitrary language names to existing major
|      modes.
| 
| `org-src-window-setup'
|      Controls the way Emacs windows are rearranged when the edit buffer
|      is created.
| 
| `org-src-preserve-indentation'
|      This variable is especially useful for tangling languages such as
|      Python, in which whitespace indentation in the output is critical.
| 
| `org-src-ask-before-returning-to-edit-buffer'
|      By default, Org will ask before returning to an open edit buffer.
|      Set this variable to nil to switch without asking.
| 
|    To turn on native code fontification in the _Org_ buffer, configure
| the variable `org-src-fontify-natively'.
| 
`----

HTH,
Nick

Re: "Generic" Source block language specification?

[Jambunathan K]

Rainer M Krug <r.m.krug@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi
>
> I have in a document a definition of a projection, which is essentially a text as follow:
>
> #+BEGIN_src
>   +proj=aea +lat_1=-28.25
>           +lat_2=-29.75
>           +lat_0=29
>           +lon_0=30.75
>           +x_0=0
>           +y_0=0
>           +datum=WGS84
>           +units=m
>           +no_defs
> #+END_src
>
> Now this does obviously not export, as the source block language is missing. Is there a way that I
> can get the same formating of the source in the exportes output but without the syntax highlighting?
>
> BEGIN_EXAMPLE
> END_EXAMPLE
>
> is similar, but I would like the block to be formated as the SRC
> blocks.

Marking the src block as `fundamental' has a drawback.  One can no
longer have in-buffer fontification of src blocks.

A better option would be to have a custom variable which produces
black-and-white src blocks on export.  

ODT already has this option.

    C-h v org-e-odt-fontify-srcblocks RET

I am CCing Nicolas, to check whether he would be interested in
introducing an export knob for this.

> Thanks,
> Rainer

-- 

Re: "Generic" Source block language specification?

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Hello,

Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> writes:

> Rainer M Krug <r.m.krug@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> I have in a document a definition of a projection, which is essentially a text as follow:
>>
>> #+BEGIN_src
>>   +proj=aea +lat_1=-28.25
>>           +lat_2=-29.75
>>           +lat_0=29
>>           +lon_0=30.75
>>           +x_0=0
>>           +y_0=0
>>           +datum=WGS84
>>           +units=m
>>           +no_defs
>> #+END_src
>>
>> Now this does obviously not export, as the source block language is missing. Is there a way that I
>> can get the same formating of the source in the exportes output but without the syntax highlighting?
>>
>> BEGIN_EXAMPLE
>> END_EXAMPLE
>>
>> is similar, but I would like the block to be formated as the SRC
>> blocks.
>
> Marking the src block as `fundamental' has a drawback.  One can no
> longer have in-buffer fontification of src blocks.
>
> A better option would be to have a custom variable which produces
> black-and-white src blocks on export.  
>
> ODT already has this option.
>
>     C-h v org-e-odt-fontify-srcblocks RET
>
> I am CCing Nicolas, to check whether he would be interested in
> introducing an export knob for this.

I still don't get what is wrong with example blocks (wrt export). Would
someone care to elaborate?


Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou

Re: "Generic" Source block language specification?

[Rainer M Krug]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 25/11/12 01:28, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Rainer M Krug <r.m.krug@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Hi
>>> 
>>> I have in a document a definition of a projection, which is essentially a text as follow:
>>> 
>>> #+BEGIN_src +proj=aea +lat_1=-28.25 +lat_2=-29.75 +lat_0=29 +lon_0=30.75 +x_0=0 +y_0=0 
>>> +datum=WGS84 +units=m +no_defs #+END_src
>>> 
>>> Now this does obviously not export, as the source block language is missing. Is there a way
>>> that I can get the same formating of the source in the exportes output but without the
>>> syntax highlighting?
>>> 
>>> BEGIN_EXAMPLE END_EXAMPLE
>>> 
>>> is similar, but I would like the block to be formated as the SRC blocks.
>> 
>> Marking the src block as `fundamental' has a drawback.  One can no longer have in-buffer
>> fontification of src blocks.
>> 
>> A better option would be to have a custom variable which produces black-and-white src blocks
>> on export.
>> 
>> ODT already has this option.
>> 
>> C-h v org-e-odt-fontify-srcblocks RET
>> 
>> I am CCing Nicolas, to check whether he would be interested in introducing an export knob for
>> this.
> 
> I still don't get what is wrong with example blocks (wrt export). Would someone care to
> elaborate?

Yes.

In a document, I have several source blocks with "real" code (i.e. bash and R in this case) Now I
have one block, which is not really source code, but which is "kind of" source code, in my case a
definition of a projection for a GIS project. Now I would like to have this definition of the
projection displayed in the exported document as the other source blocks, If I put it into an
EXAMPLE block, it is exported to LaTeX as verbatin and not listing, and all customisations ai have
for listings (smaller font, grey background, ...) do *not* apply to the EXAMPLE block, but woyuld
to a "fundamental" source block. So the EXAMPLE block is in this case not equivalent to the
fundamental source block.

Hope this clarifies the difference,

Cheers,

Rainer


> 
> 
> Regards,
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlCyOSUACgkQoYgNqgF2egrxdACeKk1/9hvuGv4PGEj9EAXipjOK
CW8An0KJAUM0ejDcy9n1Gq2jxEHkvmZp
=oKbK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: "Generic" Source block language specification?

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Rainer M Krug <r.m.krug@gmail.com> writes:

> In a document, I have several source blocks with "real" code (i.e. bash and R in this case) Now I
> have one block, which is not really source code, but which is "kind of" source code, in my case a
> definition of a projection for a GIS project. Now I would like to have this definition of the
> projection displayed in the exported document as the other source blocks, If I put it into an
> EXAMPLE block, it is exported to LaTeX as verbatin and not listing, and all customisations ai have
> for listings (smaller font, grey background, ...) do *not* apply to the EXAMPLE block, but woyuld
> to a "fundamental" source block. So the EXAMPLE block is in this case not equivalent to the
> fundamental source block.
>
> Hope this clarifies the difference,

Yes, thanks.

Since you use "listings" package, can't you define a new language (i.e.
with \lstdefinelanguage{pseudocode}) and then use "#+begin_src
pseudocode" block?


Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou

Re: "Generic" Source block language specification?

[Rainer M Krug]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 25/11/12 16:37, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> Rainer M Krug <r.m.krug@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> In a document, I have several source blocks with "real" code (i.e. bash and R in this case)
>> Now I have one block, which is not really source code, but which is "kind of" source code, in
>> my case a definition of a projection for a GIS project. Now I would like to have this
>> definition of the projection displayed in the exported document as the other source blocks,
>> If I put it into an EXAMPLE block, it is exported to LaTeX as verbatin and not listing, and
>> all customisations ai have for listings (smaller font, grey background, ...) do *not* apply
>> to the EXAMPLE block, but woyuld to a "fundamental" source block. So the EXAMPLE block is in
>> this case not equivalent to the fundamental source block.
>> 
>> Hope this clarifies the difference,
> 
> Yes, thanks.
> 
> Since you use "listings" package, can't you define a new language (i.e. with
> \lstdefinelanguage{pseudocode}) and then use "#+begin_src pseudocode" block?

Well - this does not seem to be necessary. If I use

#+begin_src fundamental
...
#+end_src

the block will be formated following the rules for "listings". Even if I use

#+begin_src BlaBlaBla
...
#+end_src

it does not produce an error message in LaTeX. Nice with fundamental: I can use C-c ' to open the
block in a new buffer and edit it there - very handy.

If I would like to have some highlighting in the source block in the LaTeX export, I obviously
would have to define a new language - nice idea actually for the final output.

Thanks,

Rainer

> 
> 
> Regards,
> 


- -- 
Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology, UCT), Dipl. Phys.
(Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Tel :       +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell:       +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax :       +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

Fax (D):    +49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

email:      Rainer@krugs.de

Skype:      RMkrug
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlCyQN8ACgkQoYgNqgF2egon2QCgi2XwZtHYDSvbUvp5OQm9/1sM
w3IAnj6qBems+qPepvahxB+GxKJMNONK
=UAoO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: "Generic" Source block language specification?

[Rainer M Krug]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 23/11/12 19:11, Jambunathan K wrote:
> Rainer M Krug <r.m.krug@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Hi
>> 
>> I have in a document a definition of a projection, which is essentially a text as follow:
>> 
>> #+BEGIN_src +proj=aea +lat_1=-28.25 +lat_2=-29.75 +lat_0=29 +lon_0=30.75 +x_0=0 +y_0=0 
>> +datum=WGS84 +units=m +no_defs #+END_src
>> 
>> Now this does obviously not export, as the source block language is missing. Is there a way
>> that I can get the same formating of the source in the exportes output but without the syntax
>> highlighting?
>> 
>> BEGIN_EXAMPLE END_EXAMPLE
>> 
>> is similar, but I would like the block to be formated as the SRC blocks.
> 
> Marking the src block as `fundamental' has a drawback.  One can no longer have in-buffer
> fontification of src blocks.

But this only applies for this source block, for which no message is defined anyway and
consequently no highlighting is usefull (at the moment)? Or do I miss something in your argument?

Rainer

> 
> A better option would be to have a custom variable which produces black-and-white src blocks on
> export.
> 
> ODT already has this option.
> 
> C-h v org-e-odt-fontify-srcblocks RET
> 
> I am CCing Nicolas, to check whether he would be interested in introducing an export knob for
> this.


> 
>> Thanks, Rainer
> 


- -- 
Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology, UCT), Dipl. Phys.
(Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Tel :       +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell:       +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax :       +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

Fax (D):    +49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

email:      Rainer@krugs.de

Skype:      RMkrug
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlCyQWcACgkQoYgNqgF2egpqAgCeKL/mg3oqXZLHoCi2ijAkJW1L
nCMAn0wJXsul485qXJsJ/gk3DuGfMq2u
=9O5N
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----