>> This is awkward. To do per-image export adjustments, we usually use
>> export attributes (#+ATTR_HTML: ...). And why "split"?
> I do not think that #+ATTR_HTML allows to embed (= copy) the contents
> of an SVG file directly into the HTML page.  As far as I understand, it 
> adds
> only attributes to HTML elements.

For now, yes. But more generally, Org uses #+ATTR_BACKEND to configure
export. For example, see "13.10.6 Images in LaTeX export".

You may arrange ox-html to handle special #+ATTR_BACKEND: :org-embed t
attribute that will be ignored in `org-html--make-attribute-string' and
checked in your `org-html--embed-svg-p'.

> The "split" is because of similarity with :select_tags and :exclude_tags 
> in ox.
> It allows several files to be included in or excluded from embedding.

Makes sense.

>> Please use `org-export-inline-image-p'.
> I think that the terminology "inline-image" in ox-html is confusing.
> In ox-html the result of the "inline-image"  code is an HTML tag like
> <img with attributes inside>
> It does not mean that image data is copied inline as with embedding.

If image is not inlined, it must not be displayed as an image, just as a
link. Your code will break this convention.

Please refer to "13.9.9 Images in HTML export" section of Org manual.

>> But the original code is different, no?
> Yes, I pretend that my code is an improvement:
> 1. The with-syntax-table is superfluous.
> 2. The error message gives a reason and the filename causing it.

Then, I find your code sufficiently different to not link to
stackoverflow. This link is not helpful to understand the code.

Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at <>.
Support Org development at <>,
or support my work at <>

Reply via email to