FR: source code

FR: source code

[Phil Jackson]

Hi,

This may well be beyond the scope of Org but the only thing that keeps
me from switching everything from Muse to Org is the lack of a method to
'embed' source code into a document ala:

<src lang="shell-script">
...
</src>

Is this something that might be possible in the future?

Cheers,
Phil

Re: FR: source code

[Bastien]

Phil Jackson <phil@shellarchive.co.uk> writes:

> This may well be beyond the scope of Org but the only thing that keeps
> me from switching everything from Muse to Org is the lack of a method to
> 'embed' source code into a document ala:
>
> <src lang="shell-script">
> ...
> </src>
>
> Is this something that might be possible in the future?

Yes.  For now we have #+BEGIN_EXAMPLE (info "(org)Quoted examples"), but
it's just another way of converting part of the text in fixed-width font
when exporting (like C-c : does.)

Maybe this could evolve in

#+BEGIN_EXAMPLE lang:shell-script
...
#+END_EXAMPLE

So that the exporters know how to fontify the content of such parts, and
so that #+BEGIN_EXAMPLE is really different than C-c :

BTW, we had a discussion earlier with Carsten on whether the #+BEGIN*
directives formed a consistent class.  I suggested to distinguish
between #+BEGIN_[export_language] and #+BEGIN_[type_of_region].  I
further suggested that we could have:

#+IF_HTML / #+ENDIF_HTML
#+IF_LaTeX / #+ENDIF_LaTeX
#+IF_TXT / #+ENDIF_TXT

and 

#+BEGIN_EXAMPLE / #+END_EXAMPLE
#+BEGIN myblock

But maybe we shouldn't be the strict about the semantic, at least not at
the cost of simplicity.  

What people think?

-- 
Bastien

Re: FR: source code

[Eddward DeVilla]

On Jan 8, 2008 8:03 AM, Bastien <bzg@altern.org> wrote:
> BTW, we had a discussion earlier with Carsten on whether the #+BEGIN*
> directives formed a consistent class.  I suggested to distinguish
> between #+BEGIN_[export_language] and #+BEGIN_[type_of_region].  I
> further suggested that we could have:
>
> #+IF_HTML / #+ENDIF_HTML
> #+IF_LaTeX / #+ENDIF_LaTeX
> #+IF_TXT / #+ENDIF_TXT
>
> and
>
> #+BEGIN_EXAMPLE / #+END_EXAMPLE
> #+BEGIN myblock
>
> But maybe we shouldn't be the strict about the semantic, at least not at
> the cost of simplicity.
>
> What people think?

Being someone who uses org-mode primarily for the appearance in the
org-buffer while I'm editing and using org, I really do not like this.
 It may format nicely after export, but it looks ugly in the buffer.
I suggested something before that should be able to fontify nicely (I
think) and could be translated by exporters but it didn't go over
well.  In the end, this could go in and I'd just avoid it, but I'd
hate to have this become *the way* to mark content when it only looks
presentable after export.  At least, that's my knee-jerk reaction.

Edd

Re: FR: source code

[Ed Hirgelt]

On Jan 8, 2008, at 8:04 PM, Eddward DeVilla wrote:

> On Jan 8, 2008 8:03 AM, Bastien <bzg@altern.org> wrote:
>> BTW, we had a discussion earlier with Carsten on whether the #+BEGIN*
>> directives formed a consistent class.  I suggested to distinguish
>> between #+BEGIN_[export_language] and #+BEGIN_[type_of_region].  I
>> further suggested that we could have:
>>
>> #+IF_HTML / #+ENDIF_HTML
>> #+IF_LaTeX / #+ENDIF_LaTeX
>> #+IF_TXT / #+ENDIF_TXT
>>
>> and
>>
>> #+BEGIN_EXAMPLE / #+END_EXAMPLE
>> #+BEGIN myblock
>>
>> But maybe we shouldn't be the strict about the semantic, at least  
>> not at
>> the cost of simplicity.
>>
>> What people think?
>
> Being someone who uses org-mode primarily for the appearance in the
> org-buffer while I'm editing and using org, I really do not like this.
> It may format nicely after export, but it looks ugly in the buffer.

I definite agree with that.  I, too, primarily use org-mode for the  
way things
look in Emacs.  I occasionally export but my main use is within emacs.

Thanks,
Ed

Re: FR: source code

[Russell Adams]

> I definite agree with that.  I, too, primarily use org-mode for the  
> way things
> look in Emacs.  I occasionally export but my main use is within emacs.
> 
> Thanks,
> Ed

I guess I'm missing the point. Optional tags to improve syntax
highlighting in code snippets or to improve export wouldn't affect how
your buffers look inside Emacs. You aren't obligated to use them. ;]

On the flip side as a frequent exporter, I welcome anything that can
help unobtrusively improve the quality of the output. Adding syntax
highlighting in export, or a simple way to escape code metacharacters
would be of great benefit to me.

I've recently gotten completely hooked on the Latex exporter. The
ability to turn an org outline from my project notes into a
professional looking PDF with bookmarks is invaluable! All that with
zero time spent formatting on my part.

Thanks.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Adams                            RLAdams@AdamsInfoServ.com

PGP Key ID:     0x1160DCB3           http://www.adamsinfoserv.com/

Fingerprint:    1723 D8CA 4280 1EC9 557F  66E8 1154 E018 1160 DCB3

Re: FR: source code

[Adam Spiers]

On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 11:50:20AM -0600, Russell Adams wrote:
> > I definite agree with that.  I, too, primarily use org-mode for the  
> > way things
> > look in Emacs.  I occasionally export but my main use is within emacs.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Ed

Same here.  A legible and easy to type .org format is very important
for me.

> I guess I'm missing the point. Optional tags to improve syntax
> highlighting in code snippets or to improve export wouldn't affect how
> your buffers look inside Emacs. You aren't obligated to use them. ;]

It *is* possible to simultaneously achieve beautiful clean text with
non-obtrusive semantic markup, and keep good flexibility in export
format options; reStructuredText is living proof of this:

  http://docutils.sourceforge.net/docs/ref/rst/introduction.html

Compare the following documents:

  http://docutils.sourceforge.net/docs/user/rst/quickstart.html
  http://docutils.sourceforge.net/docs/user/rst/quickstart.txt

I would *love* to see orgmode reuse more of these great ideas.

> On the flip side as a frequent exporter, I welcome anything that can
> help unobtrusively improve the quality of the output. Adding syntax
> highlighting in export, or a simple way to escape code metacharacters
> would be of great benefit to me.
> 
> I've recently gotten completely hooked on the Latex exporter. The
> ability to turn an org outline from my project notes into a
> professional looking PDF with bookmarks is invaluable! All that with
> zero time spent formatting on my part.

Hear hear, agreed on all accounts!

Re: FR: source code

[Bastien]

Ed Hirgelt <ehirgelt@gmail.com> writes:

>> On Jan 8, 2008 8:03 AM, Bastien <bzg@altern.org> wrote:
>>> #+IF_HTML / #+ENDIF_HTML
>>> #+IF_LaTeX / #+ENDIF_LaTeX
>>> #+IF_TXT / #+ENDIF_TXT
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> #+BEGIN_EXAMPLE / #+END_EXAMPLE
>>> #+BEGIN myblock
>>>
>>> What people think?
>>
>> Being someone who uses org-mode primarily for the appearance in the
>> org-buffer while I'm editing and using org, I really do not like this.
>> It may format nicely after export, but it looks ugly in the buffer.
>
> I definite agree with that.  I, too, primarily use org-mode for the
> way things look in Emacs.  I occasionally export but my main use is
> within emacs.

I do agree with both reactions - I feel the same.  But this was not
really the point I was trying to make.

We already have these directives:

,----
| #+BEGIN_HTML
| #+BEGIN_LaTeX
| #+BEGIN_TXT
| #+BEGIN_EXAMPLE
| #+BEGIN myblock
`----

Would that be clearer to have:

,----
| #+IF_HTML
| #+IF_LaTeX
| #+IF_TXT
| #+BEGIN_EXAMPLE
| #+BEGIN myblock
`----

...so that the #+IF* directives tell what text to include in the target
format, while #+BEGIN* directives tell what to do with the environment:
make it an example, or insert the output of a function, etc.

But thinking about this twice, I finally think it might be better to
generalize the use of the dynamic blocks.

  #+BEGIN my_dynamic_block
  #+BEGIN 

    => inserts the output of (my_dynamic_block)

  #+BEGIN org-export :format "html"
  This will exported in HTML only.
  #+END

  #+BEGIN org-export :format "html" :fontify "emacs-lisp"
  ;; This will be exported in any format
  ;; and properly fontified thru htmlize.el
  (defgroup org nil
    "Outline-based notes management and organizer."
    :tag "Org"
    :group 'outlines
    :group 'hypermedia
    :group 'calendar)
  #+END

This way we just have one directive (#+BEGIN) and we can have several
special dynamic blocks (just as we already have one for inserting clock
reports) taking care of what we want to do with this part of the buffer.

My 2 cents,

-- 
Bastien

Re: Re: FR: source code

[Eddward DeVilla]

On Jan 15, 2008 6:36 PM, Bastien <bzg@altern.org> wrote:
> I do agree with both reactions - I feel the same.  But this was not
> really the point I was trying to make.
>
> We already have these directives:
>
> ,----
> | #+BEGIN_HTML
> | #+BEGIN_LaTeX
> | #+BEGIN_TXT
> | #+BEGIN_EXAMPLE
> | #+BEGIN myblock
> `----

I know.  I don't care for these.  There really only useful if you are
exporting.  (By that I mean they are ugly (in my opinion) in the
org-buffer.)  I just didn't want to see more of the same.  I'd rather
see a way to mark things up so they are meaningful in the buffer as
well as export.  I must admit though that there will be cases if you
are doing some heavy publishing, like say a dissertation, you may need
some special inlining.

I may be a little quick on the knee jerk.  In buffer markup recently
got a little weaker and I'd like for it not to be over looked with the
expectation that you can just use inline html or latex.

Edd

Re: Re: FR: source code

[Bastien]

"Eddward DeVilla" <eddward@gmail.com> writes:

>> ,----
>> | #+BEGIN_HTML
>> | #+BEGIN_LaTeX
>> | #+BEGIN_TXT
>> | #+BEGIN_EXAMPLE
>> | #+BEGIN myblock
>> `----
>
> I know.  I don't care for these.  There really only useful if you are
> exporting.  

For the #+BEGIN_* you're right.  But dynamic blocks are useful for doing
anything (clock reports, etc.) - not only exporting.

> (By that I mean they are ugly (in my opinion) in the org-buffer.)

Ugly but useful :/

> I'd rather see a way to mark things up so they are meaningful in the
> buffer as well as export.

Hence my proposal to refactor these directives and only use the dynamic
block feature.  When a block should be dynamically handled would depend
on the associated function, not on the directive itself.

> I may be a little quick on the knee jerk.  In buffer markup recently
> got a little weaker and I'd like for it not to be over looked with the
> expectation that you can just use inline html or latex.

Right, understood!

-- 
Bastien

Re: FR: source code

[Tim Stewart]

Bastien <bzg@altern.org> writes:

> ,----
> | #+BEGIN_HTML
> | #+BEGIN_LaTeX
> | #+BEGIN_TXT
> | #+BEGIN_EXAMPLE
> | #+BEGIN myblock
> `----

This is very off-topic, but how did you create the above
quote-thingies (assuming you did not do it by hand)?  Is this some
Emacs feature that you're using, or something else?  I ask because I
like it and want to use it. :D

And don't worry, I'll be posting some Org-related articles in the near
future.

-- 
-TimS

Tim Stewart
Lead UNIX Systems Administrator
Ciena Corporation
Alpharetta, GA, USA
tstewart@ciena.com

Re: Re: FR: source code

[Bastien]

Tim Stewart <tstewart@ciena.com> writes:

> Bastien <bzg@altern.org> writes:
>
>> ,----
>> | #+BEGIN_HTML
>> | #+BEGIN_LaTeX
>> | #+BEGIN_TXT
>> | #+BEGIN_EXAMPLE
>> | #+BEGIN myblock
>> `----
>
> This is very off-topic, but how did you create the above
> quote-thingies (assuming you did not do it by hand)?  Is this some
> Emacs feature that you're using, or something else?  I ask because I
> like it and want to use it. :D

M-x boxquote-region (in message-mode)

http://www.davep.org/emacs/boxquote.el

> And don't worry, I'll be posting some Org-related articles in the near
> future.

Great!  If you also feel like playing with Worg, just drop me a line.

-- 
Bastien

Re: FR: source code

[Tim Stewart]

Bastien <bzg@altern.org> writes:

> Tim Stewart <tstewart@ciena.com> writes:
>
>> Bastien <bzg@altern.org> writes:
>>
>>> ,----
>>> | #+BEGIN_HTML
>>> | #+BEGIN_LaTeX
>>> | #+BEGIN_TXT
>>> | #+BEGIN_EXAMPLE
>>> | #+BEGIN myblock
>>> `----
>>
>> This is very off-topic, but how did you create the above
>> quote-thingies (assuming you did not do it by hand)?  Is this some
>> Emacs feature that you're using, or something else?  I ask because
>> I like it and want to use it. :D
>
> M-x boxquote-region (in message-mode)
>
> http://www.davep.org/emacs/boxquote.el

Great, thanks!  I'm a relative Emacs noob but I'm becoming quite
effective.  Org mode is Wonderful.

>> And don't worry, I'll be posting some Org-related articles in the
>> near future.
>
> Great!  If you also feel like playing with Worg, just drop me a
> line.

Will do.

-- 
-TimS

Tim Stewart
Lead UNIX Systems Administrator
Ciena Corporation
Alpharetta, GA, USA
tstewart@ciena.com

Re: FR: source code

[Carsten Dominik]

On Jan 8, 2008, at 12:22 PM, Phil Jackson wrote:

> Hi,
>
> This may well be beyond the scope of Org but the only thing that keeps
> me from switching everything from Muse to Org is the lack of a  
> method to
> 'embed' source code into a document ala:
>
> <src lang="shell-script">
> ...
> </src>
>
> Is this something that might be possible in the future?

It seems to me that there are really two issues here:

1. Font-locking in the buffer
2. Export

I guess one problem is that the stuff in BEGIN_EXAMPLE and similar
structures is not protected from font-lock a la org-mode.
Maybe this is the main issue you are having Phil?

How does Muse behave in your examlple?  I don't know Muse too well.

- Carsten

Re: FR: source code

[Phil Jackson]

Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> writes:

> On Jan 8, 2008, at 12:22 PM, Phil Jackson wrote:

[...]

>> is the lack of a method to 'embed' source code into a document ala:
>>
>> <src lang="shell-script">
>> ...
>> </src>

[...]

> It seems to me that there are really two issues here:
>
> 1. Font-locking in the buffer
> 2. Export
>
> I guess one problem is that the stuff in BEGIN_EXAMPLE and similar
> structures is not protected from font-lock a la org-mode.
> Maybe this is the main issue you are having Phil?
>
> How does Muse behave in your examlple?  I don't know Muse too well.

The code isn't actually font-locked in the buffer itself but is syntax
highlighted upon export (in (x)html anyway). Without actually reading
the code, I think it just takes the region applies the mode specified by
the 'lang' attribute and then uses htmlize.el on it.

I *personally* still can't decide if this is within org's scope though,
not to say I wouldn't find it very handy.

Cheers,
Phil
-- 
 Phil Jackson
 http://www.shellarchive.co.uk

Re: FR: source code

[Carsten Dominik]

On Jan 16, 2008, at 7:59 PM, Phil Jackson wrote:

> Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Jan 8, 2008, at 12:22 PM, Phil Jackson wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> is the lack of a method to 'embed' source code into a document ala:
>>>
>>> <src lang="shell-script">
>>> ...
>>> </src>
>
> [...]
>
>> It seems to me that there are really two issues here:
>>
>> 1. Font-locking in the buffer
>> 2. Export
>>
>> I guess one problem is that the stuff in BEGIN_EXAMPLE and similar
>> structures is not protected from font-lock a la org-mode.
>> Maybe this is the main issue you are having Phil?
>>
>> How does Muse behave in your examlple?  I don't know Muse too well.
>
> The code isn't actually font-locked in the buffer itself but is syntax
> highlighted upon export (in (x)html anyway). Without actually reading
> the code, I think it just takes the region applies the mode  
> specified by
> the 'lang' attribute and then uses htmlize.el on it.
>
> I *personally* still can't decide if this is within org's scope  
> though,
> not to say I wouldn't find it very handy.


So then  am confused what you initial message was about.  The feature  
your are asking for is then an exporting feature, right?  Maybe you  
need to restate what exactly you would like to see.

- Carsten

>
>
> Cheers,
> Phil
> -- 
> Phil Jackson
> http://www.shellarchive.co.uk
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

Re: FR: source code

[Phil Jackson]

Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> writes:

> On Jan 16, 2008, at 7:59 PM, Phil Jackson wrote:

[...]

>> I *personally* still can't decide if this is within org's scope
>> though, not to say I wouldn't find it very handy.
>
> So then am confused what you initial message was about.  The feature
> your are asking for is then an exporting feature, right?  Maybe you
> need to restate what exactly you would like to see.

Yes, I'm a confused young man. My final answer is: I would like to see
syntax highlighted code in a HTML export :)

Cheers,
Phil
-- 
 Phil Jackson
 http://www.shellarchive.co.uk

Re: FR: source code

[Phil Jackson]

Phil Jackson <phil@shellarchive.co.uk> writes:

> Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> writes:

[...]

>>> I *personally* still can't decide if this is within org's scope
>>> though, not to say I wouldn't find it very handy.

>> So then am confused what you initial message was about.  The feature
>> your are asking for is then an exporting feature, right?  Maybe you
>> need to restate what exactly you would like to see.

> Yes, I'm a confused young man. My final answer is: I would like to see
> syntax highlighted code in a HTML export :)

So what do you think Carsten? I would like to see the:

    #+BEGIN_EXAMPLE lang:shell-script
    #+END_EXAMPLE

That Bastien suggested. I would be willing to help out the exporter
people if need be.
-- 
 Phil Jackson
 http://www.shellarchive.co.uk

Re: FR: source code

[Rick Moynihan]

Phil Jackson wrote:
> Phil Jackson <phil@shellarchive.co.uk> writes:
> 
>> Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>>> I *personally* still can't decide if this is within org's scope
>>>> though, not to say I wouldn't find it very handy.
> 
>>> So then am confused what you initial message was about.  The feature
>>> your are asking for is then an exporting feature, right?  Maybe you
>>> need to restate what exactly you would like to see.
> 
>> Yes, I'm a confused young man. My final answer is: I would like to see
>> syntax highlighted code in a HTML export :)
> 
> So what do you think Carsten? I would like to see the:
> 
>     #+BEGIN_EXAMPLE lang:shell-script
>     #+END_EXAMPLE
> 

I'd like to see this too, primarily for HTML export (for syntax 
highlighting etc) though it would be handy if you could also display the 
syntax highlighting of the specified mode inside the block in Emacs.

Also, Bastien...  In blorg.el is it possible to include HTML snippets as 
blocks of markup inside the posts?  For example embedding a video into a 
post?

e.g.

* TODO My post with embedded video

blah blah blah...

#+BEGIN_HTML
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" 
value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fu8rAWciQNs&rel=1"></param><param 
name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed 
src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fu8rAWciQNs&rel=1" 
type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" 
height="355"></embed></object>
#+END_HTML


R.

Re: FR: source code

[Russell Adams]

> I'd like to see this too, primarily for HTML export (for syntax 
> highlighting etc) though it would be handy if you could also display the 
> syntax highlighting of the specified mode inside the block in Emacs.

Would it be practical to just specify the major mode to use with
htmlify in order to syntax highlight the block of code, as opposed to
keeping a table of which types equate to which modes?

If only I had the time to learn lisp. ;]

------------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Adams                            RLAdams@AdamsInfoServ.com

PGP Key ID:     0x1160DCB3           http://www.adamsinfoserv.com/

Fingerprint:    1723 D8CA 4280 1EC9 557F  66E8 1154 E018 1160 DCB3

Re: FR: source code

[Phil Jackson]

Russell Adams <RLAdams@AdamsInfoServ.Com> writes:

>> I'd like to see this too, primarily for HTML export (for syntax 
>> highlighting etc) though it would be handy if you could also display the 
>> syntax highlighting of the specified mode inside the block in Emacs.

> Would it be practical to just specify the major mode to use with
> htmlify in order to syntax highlight the block of code, as opposed to
> keeping a table of which types equate to which modes?

I expect that's the plan.

Cheers,
Phil
-- 
 Phil Jackson
 http://www.shellarchive.co.uk

Re: FR: source code

[Bastien Guerry]

Rick Moynihan <rick@calicojack.co.uk> writes:

> Also, Bastien...  In blorg.el is it possible to include HTML snippets as
> blocks of markup inside the posts?  For example embedding a video into a
> post?

Sadly not - but keep the pressure, it motivates me to work harder on the
next org-based blogging tool :)

-- 
Bastien

Re: FR: source code

[Bastien Guerry]

Phil Jackson <phil@shellarchive.co.uk> writes:

> So what do you think Carsten? I would like to see the:
>
>     #+BEGIN_EXAMPLE lang:shell-script
>     #+END_EXAMPLE
>
> That Bastien suggested. I would be willing to help out the exporter
> people if need be.

For the record, the full suggestion is here:

  http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.orgmode/5053/focus=5057

-- 
Bastien

Re: FR: source code

[Carsten Dominik]

On Jan 29, 2008, at 5:04 PM, Phil Jackson wrote:

> Phil Jackson <phil@shellarchive.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> writes:
>
> [...]
>
>>>> I *personally* still can't decide if this is within org's scope
>>>> though, not to say I wouldn't find it very handy.
>
>>> So then am confused what you initial message was about.  The feature
>>> your are asking for is then an exporting feature, right?  Maybe you
>>> need to restate what exactly you would like to see.
>
>> Yes, I'm a confused young man. My final answer is: I would like to  
>> see
>> syntax highlighted code in a HTML export :)
>
> So what do you think Carsten? I would like to see the:
>
>    #+BEGIN_EXAMPLE lang:shell-script
>    #+END_EXAMPLE
>
> That Bastien suggested. I would be willing to help out the exporter
> people if need be.

Hi Phil,

just to let you know: this idea is not forgotten.  However, we have some
internal discussion about a big generalization of the exporters.
If that happens, things like special formatting of examples will be  
easy to
add.  Before being sure what is going to happen, I don't want to
be spending time with this.

However, since you have signed the papers now, feel free to implement
a proposal for the exporter.  The routing where you want to hook into
might be org-cleaned-string-for-export - this is where the BEGIN_EXAMPLE
is currently turned into a quoted string.  However, the fact that I am
pointing you to this routine might already show that the exporter
really needs a rewrite.

- Carsten