On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote:
> Federico Beffa <be...@ieee.org> writes:
>
>> to help me understand what kind of problems one could face with HTML (or
>> another back-end), could you give a concrete example?
>
> line 1
> line 2
> \[1+1\]
>
> ==>
>
> <p>
> line 1
> line 2
> <img... />
> </p>
>
> whereas
>
> line 1
> line 2
> \begin{equation*}
> 1+1
> \end{equation*}
>
> ==>
>
> <p>
> line 1
> line 2
> </p>
>
> <p>
> <img ... />
> </p>
>
> IOW, there are two different structures in the document:
>
> ((paragraph latex))
>
> vs
>
> ((paragraph) (latex))
>
> even though M-q cannot tell that difference (with your proposal, the
> behaviour would be the same in both cases).
The example highlight the difference that I suggested to remove in the
very first place (by making \[...\] an environment). This was rejected
to preserve backward compatibility and that's fine. So I moved on to a
second proposal: modify the paragraph filling function.
Didn't the following comment in your previous reply refer to the
second proposal?
> Ignoring \[...\] when filling the paragraph is misleading. You may
> believe the object doesn't belong to the paragraph at all. I think M-q
> should, on the contrary, give clues about the structure of the document.
>
> Also, it doesn't make a difference when exporting to LaTeX, but it might
> in back-ends with a different definition for paragraphs (e.g. HTML).
>From your sentence in your last reply:
"... even though M-q cannot tell that difference (with your proposal,
the behaviour would be the same in both cases)."
I understand that there is no technical deficiency in it. Am I
therefore correct in saying that if you prefer not to include this
proposal in org-mode it isn't for technical reasons but it is a matter
of opinion/taste?
I would like to know, because in any case I would like to use the
proposed filling function in my copy of org-mode and if you see
technical problems/errors I very much would like to be aware of them
and, if possible, avoid/correct them.
Regards,
Federico
