From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thorsten Jolitz Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Encoding differences between Emacs and Emacsclient? Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 23:26:43 +0200 Message-ID: <87mwmzff58.fsf@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1380230842 8247 80.91.229.3 (26 Sep 2013 21:27:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 21:27:22 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Sep 26 23:27:25 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VPJ5p-0005Wa-0Y for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 23:27:25 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60007 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VPJ5o-0001z6-JX for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 17:27:24 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36405) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VPJ5V-0001yA-MF for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 17:27:12 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VPJ5N-0000XC-HO for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 17:27:05 -0400 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:52803) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VPJ5N-0000Wx-An for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 17:26:57 -0400 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VPJ5L-0004zy-9S for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 23:26:55 +0200 Original-Received: from g231225012.adsl.alicedsl.de ([92.231.225.12]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 23:26:55 +0200 Original-Received: from tjolitz by g231225012.adsl.alicedsl.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 23:26:55 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 47 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: g231225012.adsl.alicedsl.de User-Agent: Gnus/5.130002 (Ma Gnus v0.2) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:nhZCFPeePIiSTPRS4sUEWuEgChQ= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:93646 Archived-At: Hi List, I call 'emacs -Q --batch' from another program and let it export an Org file to html and return the result als string. Works fine so far. To speed things up, I started an 'emacs -Q --daemon=my-emacs-server' and now call it via emacsclient. Otherwise I do exactly the same as before. But know the returned html is full of \n that are printed when loading the html file in a browser: ,------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | \n\n | \nThese and quite a lot other markup types are supported:\n | | \n | \n | \n | 1.1 Heading # Heading (level 3) | | \n | \n | | \nSome italic words mixed with bold words look nice, while | underlined\ntext is a bit overkill sometimes. An unordered list like\n | | \n\n | \n | List item 1 # List items\n | \n | List item 2\n | \n | \n\n `------------------------------------------------------------------------ What happened here? Does the emacscient/server combination behave different than emacs it batch mode? Its the same emacs version, both started with -Q, in both cases only the relevant Org exporter libs loaded - but what is printed to stdout/stderr looks quite different. Any tips would be appreciated. -- cheers, Thorsten