Re: [Orgmode] text color + highlight

[Eric Schulte]

Hi Christian,

Christian Moe <address@hidden> writes:

> Hi,
>
> I'm sorry my point was buried in quoted text. I did read Samuel's
> post. But my question was whether we couldn't *avoid inventing new
> syntaxes*, by using the already existing link syntax with custom links
> and export handlers (plus possibly some some new functionality to
> user-customize the faces of different link types in Org-mode).
>
> e.g.
>
> : [[color:red][some text in red]]
> : [[class:highlight][some highlighted text]]
>
>
> It's already trivial to write one's own `color' and `class' custom
> link types with export handlers to turn this into HTML such as:
>
> : <span style="color: red;">some text in red</span>
> : <span class="highlight">some highlighted text</span>
>

Thanks for making this suggestion.  This is a much better solution than
creating a new syntax out of whole cloth, I should have known that Org
would already have a working solution in place.

Just for completeness I'm adding an example of a color handler which can
be added to a users config to enable colorization of exported text to
html and latex.

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
(org-add-link-type
 "color" nil
 (lambda (path desc format)
   (cond
    ((eq format 'html)
     (format "<span style=\"color:%s;\">%s</span>" path desc))
    ((eq format 'latex)
     (format "{\\color{%s}%s}" path desc)))))
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

it should be fairly straightforward to extend the above for background
or class link types

>
> (where the latter example would be styled by CSS).
>
> Doing this in exported text requires *no changes* to Org-mode. It also
> does not require finding one solution that fits everybody.
>
> If one wants Org text styled in these colors, highlights etc., I
> suppose it would require changes in Org-mode: not just
> user-customizable faces for different link types, as I wrote in the
> previous message, but a function to define link faces on the fly from
> the PATH part of the link.
>

I think in-buffer colorization is much less important than the export
behavior.

Cheers -- Eric

>
>
> Christian
>
> Carsten Dominik wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Can we please first read Samuels post about extensible syntax?
>> Before we invent 20 other new syntaxes?
>>
>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.orgmode/10204/focus=10204
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> On Aug 10, 2010, at 8:14 AM, Christian Moe wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> >>
>>> >> - this would be extensible, e.g.
>>> >>
>>> >>  [background[yellow] highlighted text]
>>> >>
>>> >>  could export to the following html
>>> >>
>>> >>  <span "style=background:yellow;">highlighted text</span>
>>> >>
>>> >> - this would avoid "{}"s
>>> >>
>>> >> - this would look more "org-like" than the pure latex solution
>>> >>
>>> >> the only issue with the above is that it may conflate a new /markup/
>>> >> syntax with org-mode's existing /link/ syntax.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thoughts? -- Eric
>>>
>>> I'd like an extensible inline markup construct (not primarily for
>>> coloring).
>>>
>>> Would it make sense to hijack custom links for this purpose, and
>>> use existing bracketed link syntax rather than add a new syntax?
>>>
>>> For semantic tagging (my chief interest), one might e.g. define a
>>> class' link type and an HTML export handler to wrap the contents in
>>> <span class="kewyord"> tags.
>>>
>>> : [[class:animals][some text about animals]]
>>>
>>> As for color: If one is satisfied with getting colors on export,
>>> defining a `color' link type and appropriate export handlers will
>>> do.
>>>
>>> : [[color:red][some colored text]]
>>>
>>> If one also wants the text to appear in the right color within
>>> Org-mode, and does not want the pseudo-link markup to be underlined
>>> and look like links, it would require additional Org functionality
>>> (I think): User-defined custom faces for different link types.
>>>
>>>>>> What syntax to use...
>>>>>
>>>>> I've thought briefly about the following syntax
>>>>>
>>>>> [color[red] text to be colored red]
>>>> Nope, I am against this syntax.  If we introduce a more general syntax,
>>>> then it should be done in the way Samuel proposed.  WHich means
>>>> we firs get a keyword indtroducing the piece, and then properties.
>>>> Like
>>>>   $[style :color red the red text]
>>>> or
>>>>   $[face :color :italic t red the red text]
>>>> Something like the $ before "[" also would seem critical to disambiguate
>>>> from other uses of "[".
>>>> However, I am not too excited about extra syntax to get this kind
>>>> of thing.
>>>> Would not oppose it, but probably never use it.
>>>> - Carsten
>>>
>>> Those examples are not very readable IMO -- without a separator
>>> it's hard to see where the property values end and the marked up
>>> text begins.
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>> Christian
>>
>> - Carsten
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
>> Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
>> address@hidden
>> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
>>