On 14/10/2007, Bastien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > First impressions are that Blorg seems to work quite well, though it > > takes some setting up, and could be made more flexible > > Sure. I wrote blorg more than one year ago, and I made the mistake of > trying too add too many functions too early.
Ahhh, the benefit of hindsight :) You may feel you've added the features too quick, but the feature set seems reasonably good. > Since that time, Org changed a lot and introduced properties - blorg > should be able to take advantage of them somehow. Also, some code I > wrote in org-export-latex.el could be of some help in parsing the Org > file to get it published as a blog. Yes, I can imagine that properties might be useful, perhaps for enabling/disabling features at publish time (e.g. comment forms etc...). This said I'm only just starting to explore their uses in plain org-mode, so I don't really know yet. > My plan is to rewrite blorg nearly from scratch, trying not to rush on > functionnalities and adding them only if people need them. Yes it's a good strategy and one that's worked well for org-mode. I do however have some features which I'd like to see. If it's not too rude, I'll list some here: - Ability to define your own HTML <head>'s. Specifically here the issue was wanting to list a 3rd party feed (feedburner) rather than my own as a <link> in the <head>. I did in fact modify blorg.el to do this through a new customize variable. If you want I can send you the patch. - Ability to include code blocks in posts (with syntax highlighting). - The ability to make an image a link i.e. to output <a href="..."><img ...></a> - To allow sorting of published posts by their date rather than their order in the org-mode file. - To have more customizable echoes. I also noticed that my templates tended to be practically identical, causing a lot of duplicated code between them. Being able to include your own elisp in these templates would also be handy. Also writing/copying&pasting HTML inside customize buffers is a little painful. > > sometimes seems to be a little temperamental in publishing to html > > with links not rendering properly etc > > The next version of blorg will use Org internals for rendering HTML. This makes a lot of sense. > The good thing of all this is that, no matter how far blorg1 will be > from blorg0, you can always work on your Org source without worrying > too much on this! Source is source :) Agreed! This said I'm already eager to move to blorg1. It'd be great if I could use my old blorg.org file on the new version though, even if I have to change my configuration. Thanks again! R. _______________________________________________ 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
