Re: [Orgmode] Re: text color + highlight

[Samuel Wales]

Hi Dan,

I think you might have found the thread to which I had intented to
post my reply that now is in the thread, "extensible syntax example
using link features".  Not sure though.  The last few paragraphs have
comments on a topic related to this.

Samuel

On 2010-08-10, Dan Davison <address@hidden> wrote:
> Carsten Dominik <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> 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
>
> May I add this thread to the discussion as an example of another feature
> that was suggested as a possible use case for extensible syntax:
>
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.orgmode/24431
>
> This is the feature I currently want most in org-mode: org mode blocks
> that behave exactly like org-mode blocks, except that their content in
> reality lies in a different file. This would allow org-mode to improve
> on its claim of inobtrusiveness: one could collaborate on a code project
> without the other people knowing you were using org-mode to manage your
> access points into the shared files. Also, I like the corollary, that a
> version control system will track the code content in separate files
> from the org content.
>
> A related idea is having links with both a start and an end point:
> following them would end up in a buffer to the specified region ("window
> links" if window wasn't already used for a different meaning).
>
> Any ideas welcome! (there are also ideas in that thread)
>
> Dan
>
>
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
>


-- 
Q: How many CDC "scientists" does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: "You only think it's dark." [CDC has denied a deadly disease for 25 years]
==========
Retrovirus: http://www.wpinstitute.org/xmrv/index.html -- PLEASE DONATE
===
PNAS must publish the original Lo and Alter NIH/FDA XMRV paper
verbatim along with the new paper.