On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Sebastien Vauban
<wxhgmqzgw...@spammotel.com> wrote:
>
> "Sean O'Halpin" wrote:
>>
>> I suggest we rename it to "#+HTML_HEAD".
>
> But I'd like to propose HTML_HEADER instead (?), to "mirror" what LaTeX_HEADER
> does -- at least, if that one still exists, which I'm not sure about (not
> enough played with the new exporter yet).
>
I'm going on the assumption that what comes after the =#+HTML_= prefix
is specific to the HTML back-end. Where LaTeX has a /conceptual/
header, HTML has a /concrete/ =<head>= element. There's nothing to
mirror =LaTeX_CLASS= for example because the concept of document class
does not exist in HTML.
This raises another question which is more about Org document export
headers in general: why do we have specific document headers for LaTeX
and HTML? Because we need to able to insert raw markup at specific
points in the exported document. (We also have =html-preamble= and
=html-postamble= which act on every document.) But what about other
exporter back-ends? Say we get a native org to docbook exporter. What
would be the mechanism for inserting markup into the =<artheader>=?
Would there be a =#+DOCBOOK_HEADER=?
Please forgive my meandering here. It's just struck me that we might
need a more general mechanism for document-level export directives
that will avoid multiplying the number of =#+HTML_= style directives
we already have. Perhaps something along the lines of:
#+BEGIN_SRC ORG
,#+EXPORT html head <style .../>
,#+EXPORT latex header \usepackage{xyz}
#+END_SRC
where =head= and =header= represent specific places in the exported
document that the exporter in question has defined as places you can
insert raw markup. So, Org would define the =#+EXPORT= protocol,
specific back-ends would define the names and places.
Regards,
Sean
