On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Dan Davison <dandavis...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Dan Davison <dandavis...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Jeff Horn <jrhorn...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 6:22 AM, Dan Davison <dandavis...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > I strongly second this. In fact I'll stick my neck out more: Worg is >>> > great, but for tutorials on org-mode, HTML export is often the wrong >>> > format for obvious reasons (i.e. unless you go to some trouble, it >>> > conceals a lot of the org syntax). I'm tempted to suggest that htmlized >>> > output should be the default format for many org tutorials on Worg. >>> >>> I respectfully disagree with your assertion. When someone writes a >>> document "properly", i.e. in a literate fashion, i.e. using org source >>> blocks, the right syntax is shown at the right time. >> >> So I think we both have babel documents in mind -- i.e. ones with >> active code blocks. The trouble with using org source blocks to render >> the org syntax in HTML is that the content must be duplicated. I know >> from experience that it is easy to let the pedagogical org block get >> out of sync with its functional counterpart. > > Another possibility is that a new header arg (perhaps ":exports org") > could be added to babel, which would have the effect of wrapping the > block in an org src block on export.
That's quite elegant. Certainly takes the tedium out of fixing already broken pages. -- Jeffrey Horn http://www.failuretorefrain.com/jeff/ _______________________________________________ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
