Sébastien Vauban <wxhgmqzgw...@spammotel.com> wrote: > > > > It could use the fact that it is in a <pre> section - but the function > > is generic wrt backends, so it doesn't worry about details like this. > > Maybe a backend-specific function can be called at this point to deal > > with it - and that can be smarter about how to transform it properly. > > A comment from a 30,000 feet view: why looking at <pre>? Maybe looking at the > fact it is (still, at that point in time) a LaTeX order in a HTML block? >
Well, my view is maybe from 29000 feet, so I'm not sure I can see any better than you can: the <pre> suggestion was because clearly anything in a <pre> should not be transformed any further by the HTML exporter; I'm not sure whether you can make similar (but perhaps somewhat weaker) statements outside of a <pre>. > The opposite could be as generic: not interpreting HTML orders when in LaTeX > blocks? > Yes, the way that is done today is draconian: delete the thing. If it's not there, it cannot be interpreted. So off with its head! Dead men tell no tales :-) You are right: it is a generic problem - writing HTML examples to be published with LaTeX would lead to the same difficulties. Nick
