Re: "Generic" Source block language specification?

[Rainer M Krug <r.m.krug@gmail.com>]

-----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-----