Example text and source code in agenda - orgmanual.org typo

Example text and source code in agenda - orgmanual.org typo

[Gerhard]

I was searching for the Org Mode Manual as org-mode file, but it was not 
easy to find. Then I discovered orgmanual.org by TS Dye 
https://github.com/tsdye/orgmanual. I remembered a thread about it in 
this mailing list. It seems to be not completely finished, but I like 
it. My expertise in org-mode is very small and I wanted to play around 
with that file. So I added it to the agenda. Building the agenda was 
slow and after a while I found out that it was because of typos in 
orgmanual.org (org-float instead of diary-float, see below), but also I 
did not expect dates or code from example text or source code snippets 
to appear on the agenda, but it does.

Can I prevent that dates in example text like
#+begin_example
<2014-04-08 Di 15:54>
#+end_example
appear in the agenda?

In orgmanual.org I discovered two examples that seem to contain "typos". 
Probably it was intended to write "diary-float" but it is written 
"org-float". (In 8.1 Timestamps, deadlines, and scheduling, and in 8.3 
Deadlines and scheduling)

And in the second it is written (diary-float t 42) instead of 
(diary-float t 4 2), I guess. Which is also in the original manual (info 
document) a typo, I guess.

After correcting these issues in orgmanual.org, the agenda builds fast 
and no error messages like "Bad sexp at line 5464 in 
/home/gsqual/git/orgmanual/orgmanual.org: (org-float t 4 2)" appear any 
more.

Gerhard

Re: Example text and source code in agenda - orgmanual.org typo

[Thomas S. Dye]

Aloha Gerhard,

Gerhard <gsqual@gmail.com> writes:

> It seems to be not completely finished, but I like 
> it.

Jonathan Leech-Pepin's texinfo exporter is really nice to work with.  At
the time I was working on orgmanual.org I thought the texinfo and pdf
output were superior to org.texi, but that was a personal preference and
is not meant to be a criticism of org.texi.

I ran out of steam on the project when Org mode moved to version 8.
There were very many changes to the manual at that time and it proved
difficult to keep up with the changes.  It might be possible to automate
the update process, but this is beyond the ability of someone with my
limited skills.  The manual process is a lot of error-prone work.

When I was working on the project I hoped the Org mode developers would
choose to "eat their own dog food" (as Carsten put it to me) and prepare
the texinfo and other documentation with Org mode source.  Of course,
that hope was based on considerable naivete and an imperfect
understanding of how Org mode is connected with the rest of the Emacs
world.

All the best,
Tom

-- 
Thomas S. Dye
http://www.tsdye.com

Re: Example text and source code in agenda - orgmanual.org typo

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Hello,

ntsd@tsdye.com (Thomas S. Dye) writes:

> When I was working on the project I hoped the Org mode developers would
> choose to "eat their own dog food" (as Carsten put it to me) and prepare
> the texinfo and other documentation with Org mode source.  Of course,
> that hope was based on considerable naivete and an imperfect
> understanding of how Org mode is connected with the rest of the Emacs
> world.

FWIW, I still think it would be good to have our documentation in our
home-made format.

Of course, there's the problem of backporting documentation fixes coming
from Emacs developers, but we might find volunteers to take care of it.
Also, it doesn't happen very frequently.

There may be other road blocks that I'm not aware of, but if there is
none, I suggest to think about the feasibility of this project again.


Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou

Re: Example text and source code in agenda - orgmanual.org typo

[Gerhard]

Hello,

Am 08.04.2014 21:31, schrieb Nicolas Goaziou:
> ntsd@tsdye.com (Thomas S. Dye) writes:
>
>> When I was working on the project I hoped the Org mode developers would
>> choose to "eat their own dog food" (as Carsten put it to me) and prepare
>> the texinfo and other documentation with Org mode source.  Of course,
>> that hope was based on considerable naivete and an imperfect
>> understanding of how Org mode is connected with the rest of the Emacs
>> world.
> FWIW, I still think it would be good to have our documentation in our
> home-made format.
>
> Of course, there's the problem of backporting documentation fixes coming
> from Emacs developers, but we might find volunteers to take care of it.
> Also, it doesn't happen very frequently.
>
> There may be other road blocks that I'm not aware of, but if there is
> none, I suggest to think about the feasibility of this project again.
>
now I know more about the history and status of this project, thanks to 
your answers. Although it looks to me as a good starting point, It also 
seems to take quite a bit of knowledge about many things to go on here, 
so I am not the one who could help. But maybe the volunteers can be found.

Regards,
Gerhard