Ihor Radchenko <yanta...@gmail.com> writes:
> Ihor Radchenko <yanta...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Instead of fontifying elements individually via regexps, we can leverage
>> org-element-map, org-element-parse-buffer, org-element-cache, and
>> jit-lock-mode. Each type of Org element/object can be assigned with a
>> fontification function accepting a single argument - the element datum.
>
> I have been working on the new fontification library for the last
> several months and I have noticed several confusing things in the
> current fontification settings.
>
Very pleased your working on this. I suspect this will, once combined
with the other fine work you have done, generate some very rewarding
results.
> I'd like to hear if anyone has any idea on how to interpret the
> following:
>
> 1. org-protecting-blocks is an internal auxiliary variable used to
> determine which blocks should be fontified using different major
> mode.
> It's value is ("src" "example" "export")
> So, #+begin_src lang and #+begin_export lang are fontified according
> to LANG. Makes sense.
> However, what about #+begin_example?
> org-element-example-block-parser does not appear to expect language
> specification in the example blocks. Only switches seems to be
> allowed. Am I missing something and Org actually allows example
> blocks to specify language? Or was it the case in the distant past
> versions of Org?
>
I don't recall ever being able to specify language type with source
blocks. The only benefit I can see for being able to would be to have
blocks which are not 'executed' (tangled), but you can already achieve
that just using source blocks. So, from my perspective, I would want
example blocks (which I view mainly as a type of verbatim block)
fontified in a distinct manner, but no need for language specific
font-locking - if I want that, I would just use a src block.
> 2. org-script-display is an internal auxiliary variable used to display
> sub/superscripts. Note that it's default value holds 4 possibilities.
> Two for each type of script. For example, for superscripts we have
> two options:
> ((raise 0.3) (height 0.7)) and ((raise 0.5))
> The first one looks more compact (does not change the line height)
> and reduces size of the superscript.
> The second one makes superscript have the same size with the main
> text an increases the line height x1.5.
>
> org-raise-scripts fontifies sub/superscripts differently inside and
> outside the tables:
> From org-raise-scripts:
> (nth (if table-p 3 1) org-script-display)
>
> However, it currently uses x1.5 line height for tables creating empty
> space between vertical | separators. It looks like a typo for me. It
> would make more sense to make table lines compact, not vice versa. Am
> I missing something?
>
I need superscript/subscript so rarely I really don't have much of a
position. However, I do find it annoying when a superscript/subscript
character alters the line spacing for the line it happens to display in.
> 3. org-fontify-meta-lines-and-blocks-1 creates a special face for
> ("+title:" "+subtitle:" "+author:" "+email:" "+date:")
> The face name is org-document-info.
> But what about, say, +description: or +language:?
> Would it make more sense to fontify all the keywords from
> org-options-keywords instead?
>
Yes, I think that would be the right approach. I suspect most people
won't really worry too much. Absent font locking is less of an issue
than incorrect font locking. Soemthing too often seen with regexp based
font-locking which I'm hoping will be avoided with a version based more
on parsed elements etc.
