From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Suvayu Ali Subject: Re: syntax for blocks that the exporter should not render? Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 13:43:03 +0200 Message-ID: <20130905114303.GB2392@kuru.dyndns-at-home.com> References: <87eh93r35b.fsf@gmail.com> <0B394303-79FD-4990-B731-1F3F36FE02E0@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50578) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VHXxt-0003ao-IV for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Sep 2013 07:43:11 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VHXxs-0003Oc-9r for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Sep 2013 07:43:09 -0400 Received: from mail-ea0-x22e.google.com ([2a00:1450:4013:c01::22e]:60284) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VHXxs-0003OV-23 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Sep 2013 07:43:08 -0400 Received: by mail-ea0-f174.google.com with SMTP id z15so840140ead.5 for ; Thu, 05 Sep 2013 04:43:07 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0B394303-79FD-4990-B731-1F3F36FE02E0@gmail.com> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hi Carsten, On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 01:27:57PM +0200, Carsten Dominik wrote: > > On Sep 5, 2013, at 12:09 PM, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > > >>> #+/home/matt/Matt_headshots/Matt Price/IMG_9367_.jpg > >>> http://2013.hackinghistory.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/wpid-IMG_9367_2.jpg > >> > >> I don't think this is the right behavior, such lines should not be rendered. > >> Suvayu is right, with a space after the # they are treated as commendt, but I think > >> they should also be ignored with the plus. > >> > >> Nicolas, what is the reasoning behind rendering them? > > > > Because this isn't valid Org syntax, so it is treated as regular text > > (i.e. a paragraph). Something similar happens for unbalanced blocks: > > So in a way this is a "syntax error" message. :) > > OK, I get that point. Is that behaviour documented? I think it is more of a "I don't recognise this as special syntax; it must be text". In that case, I'm not sure what can be documented, one can have infinitely many text blurbs which look very similar to valid Org syntax but isn't. I have noticed quite a few posts on the list with this kind of misunderstanding. I think the confusion arises from thinking of special keywords like "#+options:", "#+attr_latex:", etc as comments. AFAIU, they are not. Lines starting with "#+" are possible keywords, whereas lines starting with "# " are comments. I can see how that can be confusing, but can't think of a way to resolve this. I have two possibilities in mind: 1. change "# " to something more distict like: "//", or "##", 2. use different faces for the two. (1) is probably too big a change, whereas (2) might be feasible. Nicolas will probably have a better feeling about what is more appropriate here. Cheers, -- Suvayu Open source is the future. It sets us free.