Neil Smithline <emacs-orgm...@neilsmithline.com> writes: > Bastien, > > I've been looking at the bugpile Worg page (very nice page - good work > Thorsten or whomever) and don't see why you say: > >> I don't see how github could use such >> a setup to produce HTML files from Org (unless github runs an Emacs >> batch query for exporting HTML... which seems very unlikely - and >> wrong by design anyway. > > I understand that Emacs is a bit of a behemoth in terms of CPU when > being started and always in terms of memory. That being said, why does > it seem "wrong by design" to have Github running an Emacs server and > sending Org --> HTML jobs to it with emacsclient? >
I think this issue is unrelated to the bugpile proposal. As you mention all that is required to export Org-mode files to HTML is a daemon emacs process and emacsclient. My guess (although this is really a question for the people at github) is that adding Emacs to their web software stack is simply too heavy weight (in terms of processing time and complexity) of a tool for simple file export. As one example of the complexity involved; imagine I push up a .org file to github which includes an embedded code block with shell code and the ":exports results" header argument. Unless the github admins have turned off code block execution, such a document would allow me to execute arbitrary shell code on their servers with the permissions of whoever created the emacs daemon. > > Just a head's up, once you answer the above question, I'm going to ask > you what can be done to fix the problem :-) > I would be happy to see full support for Org-mode->html export on github, but I'd be surprised if you could convince the github admins that the payoff is worth the cost. Best, > > Neil > > > > Neil Smithline > http://www.neilsmithline.com > Proud GNU Emacs user since 1986, v. 18.24. > > On 4/26 03:57 , Bastien wrote: >> Hi Neil, >> >> Neil Smithline <emacs-orgm...@neilsmithline.com> writes: >> >>> I've run into this problem dealing with the weak presentation of Org Mode >>> files on Github. Github uses the Ruby gem org-ruby >>> (https://github.com/bdewey/org-ruby) to convert .org files to HTML. I've >>> added a feature or two to org-ruby but really feel that trying to >>> completely re-implement Org Mode in a Ruby gem is a losing battle. >> >> What will help org-ruby (and github's support of org files) is to >> stabilize the syntax of .org files as much as possible. We are >> currently working in this direction. >> >> org-ruby's main job is to convert .org files into HTML or textile files. >> >>> If I understand the project correctly, a working iOrg could be used to >>> support Github's rendering of .org files. Github could just drop the use of >>> org-ruby and use iOrg as an external converter for formatting .org files. >> >> As I understand it, iOrg will convert .org files to HTML using the >> internal Org's HTML exporter. I don't see how github could use such >> a setup to produce HTML files from Org (unless github runs an Emacs >> batch query for exporting HTML... which seems very unlikely - and >> wrong by design anyway. >> >> Let's see how iOrg evolves but let's stick to the bugpile for now. >> >> If the list can specifically help about org-ruby issues, let's help! >> >> All best, >> >>> PS: And the answer is "Yes. I am aware that vehemently suggesting a project >>> is equivalent to offering to help with it." :-D >> >> Good :) >> > > -- Eric Schulte http://cs.unm.edu/~eschulte/
