Hello, KDr2 <killy.d...@gmail.com> writes:
> This is nice, but it brought a bug, `[N]' in HTML block is recognized as > footnote, e.g.: > > #+BEGIN_HTML > ONE[1] > <script> > console.log(v1[0]); > </script> > #+END_HTML > > There are two footnotes in the generated HTML. Would you fix this > please? Unfortunately, no, I cannot fix it. The problem is even deeper. Indeed, my approach is fundamentally wrong: it is impossible to postpone choosing between parsed or raw data at export time. This information must be obtained at parsing time. Yet, I think syntax should not depend on the libraries loaded. So the initial problem still needs a solution. Special blocks and export blocks are just too similar. We could make them slightly different. One solution is to mark explicitly blocks meant to insert raw code. E.g., #+BEGIN_SOMETHING :special t ... #+END_SOMETHING vs #+BEGIN_SOMETHING ... #+END_SOMETHING In the first case contents would be parsed and the block treated as a special block (i.e. depending on the back-end) whereas in the second case, contents would be inserted as-is in the buffer, provided target export back-ends accepts data from "SOMETHING" blocks (IOW "SOMETHING" = "LATEX" if ox-latex is used). This is clearly not backward-compatible. But it only modifies syntax for special blocks, which, I guess, are much less used than their cousins, export blocks. The ":special t" may be shorter, too. Cc'ing Bastien for his opinion. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou
