I found this was fixed on both maint and master branch :) Thanks for all your works, but would you tell us how did you do it? or give the commit id? (Sorry I did not find it by myself...)
Thank you very much. On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote: > 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 > -- -- KDr2, http://kdr2.com
