Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

On 03/02/2022 03:01, Juan Manuel Macías wrote: Max Nikulin writes: ATTR_X attributes are supported for links as well, see info "(org) Links in HTML export" https://orgmode.org/manual/Links-in-HTML-export.html However it is rather verbose, may have problems with LaTeX, and I am unsure if they

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

Max Nikulin writes: > ATTR_X attributes are supported for links as well, see > info "(org) Links in HTML export" > https://orgmode.org/manual/Links-in-HTML-export.html > However it is rather verbose, may have problems with LaTeX, and I am > unsure if they can be accessed from export link handlers

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

Ihor Radchenko writes: Keeping in mind the above analogy, note that export blocks do not have fallbacks, while special blocks do (for example, see https://github.com/alhassy/org-special-block-extras/) Ihor, I am sorry, but I missed your point. That project provides some set of defined

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

Ihor Radchenko writes: > Maybe we should introduce an equivalent of special blocks, but for > inline use? Or should we modify _both_ inline export snippets and export > blocks to allow fallback mechanism? I find the idea of inline special blocks very interesting, but I think there are a couple

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

Max Nikulin writes: > It could be used for one more purpose. I miss "fallback" option for > export snippets. E.g. if explicit raw markup is specified for HTML and > LaTeX, it would be nice to have something for other backends such as > ascii or odt. In the series of adjacent export snippets

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

On 05/12/2021 04:48, Tom Gillespie wrote: Since org is a valid export backend though, perhaps this behaviour should be reserved for @@:…@@, i.e. no export backend, which I think semantically fits fairly nicely. ... What this means is that @@:...@@ syntax is not actually used in Org at all at

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

Hi Tom Am 04.12.2021 um 18:53 schrieb Tom Gillespie: Hi all, After a bunch of rambling (see below if interested), I think I have a solution that should work for everyone. The key realization is that what we really want is the ability to have a "parse me separately" type of syntax. This

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

On 05/12/2021 04:48, Tom Gillespie wrote: Since org is a valid export backend though, perhaps this behaviour should be reserved for @@:…@@, i.e. no export backend, which I think semantically fits fairly nicely. This ends up being even more convenient than I initially realized. It is a bright

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

i think i can't add much useful to these threads, i agree with the simplicity, but, a nuance, want for org to have had a bit more consistency growing up. e.g. quoting/escaping, demarcation, and applicability of features in different contexts. sort of a "mentally factored user interface" where

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

On Sat, Dec 04, 2021 at 10:51:47AM +1100, Tim Cross wrote: > > Tom Gillespie writes: > > > I don't mean to be a wet blanket... I'd like to be a wet blanket. > +infinity! > > Please, please can we stop trying to satisfy every edge case or extend > the markup to satisfy every possible scenario.

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

On Sat, Dec 04, 2021 at 10:01:15PM +0700, Max Nikulin wrote: > On 04/12/2021 06:51, Tim Cross wrote: > > > > Please, please can we stop trying to satisfy every edge case or extend > > the markup to satisfy every possible scenario. > > It is ridiculous to throw away a nice tool and start to

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

> Since org is a valid export backend though, perhaps this behaviour should be > reserved for @@:…@@, i.e. no export backend, which I think semantically fits > fairly nicely. This ends up being even more convenient than I initially realized. The current spec for export snippets is ambiguous when

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

Hi John, John Kitchin writes: > Along these lines (and combining the s-exp suggestion from Max) , you > can achieve something like this with links. I like this idea of merging the Maxim's proposal with the power of links. In any case, this and other workarounds provided here make it clear

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

Hi Tom, > After a bunch of rambling (see below if interested), I think I have > a solution that should work for everyone. The key realization is that > what we really want is the ability to have a “parse me separately” > type of syntax. This meets the intra-word syntax needs and might > meet some

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

Along these lines (and combining the s-exp suggestion from Max) , you can achieve something like this with links. This is lightly tested, and I am not thrilled with the eval for exporting, but I couldn't get a macro to work on the export function to avoid it, and this is just a proof of concept

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

Hi all, After a bunch of rambling (see below if interested), I think I have a solution that should work for everyone. The key realization is that what we really want is the ability to have a "parse me separately" type of syntax. This meets the intra-word syntax needs and might meet some other

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

Am 03.12.2021 um 15:24 schrieb Max Nikulin: On 03/12/2021 02:03, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: Denis Maier writes: As for suggestions: If just using /intra/word creates ambiguities, what about the asciidoc solution? So //intra//word? I sympathize to the idea of intra-word emphasis, but the syntax

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

On 04/12/2021 06:51, Tim Cross wrote: Please, please can we stop trying to satisfy every edge case or extend the markup to satisfy every possible scenario. Org's big strength is in its simplicity. This comes at a price - limitations in what can be done. If those limitations are unacceptable,

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

Tom Gillespie writes: > I don't mean to be a wet blanket, but the edge cases for > the current markup syntax are already hard enough to > implement correctly, to the point where different parts of > Org mode are inconsistent. Intra-word markup isn't viable > because there simply isn't any sane

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

Hi Maxim, Max Nikulin writes: > More explicit markup leaves less room for ambiguities, and I like the > idea due to this reason. On the other hand it diverges from principle > of lightweight markup. The almost only special character in TeX is > "\", HTML has three ones "&<>" with simple escape

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

On 03/12/2021 01:11, Tom Gillespie wrote: I recommend anyone suggesting solutions try to implement something that can parse the markup unambiguously with lots of nasty test cases. You will likely find that it is impossible to consistently tokenize markup, and that you have to hand write a whole

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

On 03/12/2021 02:03, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: Denis Maier writes: As for suggestions: If just using /intra/word creates ambiguities, what about the asciidoc solution? So //intra//word? I sympathize to the idea of intra-word emphasis, but the syntax above is going to cause some ambiguous

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

Nicolas Goaziou writes: > I'm suggesting to remove zero-width spaces contiguous to emphasis > markers only. Therefore LaTeX process would npot see them. Other zero > width spaces, e.g., inserted by user, are kept. AFAICT, the two last > points you mention are not relevant with my proposal. > >

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

Hello, Juan Manuel Macías writes: > I agree that zero width spaces work fine as a solution, but I think they > should not be understood as part of the syntax but as a punctual > (temporal?) remedy to certain scenarios. As mentioned before, in LaTeX > zero width spaces can produce unexpected

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

a silly question. don't we already use something kinda similar to \emph{what}ever for all backends? could we do so? On 12/2/21, Denis Maier wrote: > Am 02.12.2021 um 19:11 schrieb Tom Gillespie: >> I don't mean to be a wet blanket, but the edge cases for >> the current markup syntax are

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

Am 02.12.2021 um 19:11 schrieb Tom Gillespie: I don't mean to be a wet blanket, but the edge cases for the current markup syntax are already hard enough to implement correctly, to the point where different parts of Org mode are inconsistent. Intra-word markup isn't viable because there simply

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

Hi Nicolas and all, Nicolas Goaziou writes: > I find zero-with spaces solution much more elegant. It also doesn't > change current syntax, which is a big advantage. I agree that zero width spaces work fine as a solution, but I think they should not be understood as part of the syntax but as a

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

Tom Gillespie writes: > I don't mean to be a wet blanket, but the edge cases for > the current markup syntax are already hard enough to > implement correctly, to the point where different parts of > Org mode are inconsistent. Intra-word markup isn't viable > because there simply isn't any sane

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

Hello, Ihor Radchenko writes: > Denis Maier writes: > >> As for suggestions: If just using /intra/word creates ambiguities, what >> about the asciidoc solution? So //intra//word? > > I do like this idea. > > Though I would also like to hear Nicolas' opinion. I sympathize to the idea of

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

I don't mean to be a wet blanket, but the edge cases for the current markup syntax are already hard enough to implement correctly, to the point where different parts of Org mode are inconsistent. Intra-word markup isn't viable because there simply isn't any sane way to parse something like *hello

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Thursday, December 2nd, 2021 at 4:24 PM, Robert Pluim wrote: >> autofrettage> any kind of rower = Ruder*in > > But with the 'female' suffix? Thatʼs almost as bad as 'écriture > inclusive'. Surely 'Ruder**'?  The

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

On 02/12/2021 20:07, Ihor Radchenko wrote: As for suggestions: If just using /intra/word creates ambiguities, what about the asciidoc solution? So //intra//word? I do like this idea. - Some //text surprise// - ++another ~i++~ problem++ First wins...

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

> On Thu, 02 Dec 2021 13:36:48 +, autofrettage > said: autofrettage> Someone brought up edge and corner cases, so I simply have to mention the German gender stars ("Gendersternchen"). autofrettage> In an effort to make German gender neutral, some individuals use '*' in the

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

Someone brought up edge and corner cases, so I simply have to mention the German gender stars ("Gendersternchen"). In an effort to make German gender neutral, some individuals use '*' in the midst of some words, e.g. rower. Ordinary German: male rower = Ruderer female rower = Ruderin Gender

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

Am 02.12.2021 um 14:14 schrieb Juan Manuel Macías: Ihor Radchenko writes: Denis Maier writes: Can you create an example of such scenario and post it as a bug? Probably, we just need to strip all zero-width spaces at the basic ox.el level. To be clear: That's not an org bug. It's just that

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

Ihor Radchenko writes: > Denis Maier writes: > >>> Can you create an example of such scenario and post it as a bug? >>> Probably, we just need to strip all zero-width spaces at the basic ox.el >>> level. >> To be clear: That's not an org bug. It's just that latex won't be able >> such a word.

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

On Thursday, 2 Dec 2021 at 13:27, Denis Maier wrote: > This works if your target is just latex, but not if you have multiple > targets, right? Multiple targets are possible: @@latex:\textbf{html:@@intra@@latex:}html:@@word. Just very ugly! 藍 Of course, if you do this more than once, a

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

Denis Maier writes: > As for suggestions: If just using /intra/word creates ambiguities, what > about the asciidoc solution? So //intra//word? I do like this idea. Though I would also like to hear Nicolas' opinion. Best, Ihor

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

Denis Maier writes: >> An alternative may be some kind of "forced" emphasis syntax where Org >> does not have to guess about the emphasis using non-transparent rules. >> But it's what zero width space is for and it is what we recommend in the >> Org manual. > As for the forced syntax. What do

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

Denis Maier writes: >> Can you create an example of such scenario and post it as a bug? >> Probably, we just need to strip all zero-width spaces at the basic ox.el >> level. > To be clear: That's not an org bug. It's just that latex won't be able > such a word. If | is a zero width space, the

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

On 02/12/2021 19:10, Ihor Radchenko wrote: Denis Maier writes: Just a furter remark: while zero-width-spaces can be used as a workaround, they may create problems in some export formats. E.g., they will mess up hyphenation in latex. I think if read somewhere that those can be removed with

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

Am 02.12.2021 um 13:10 schrieb Ihor Radchenko: Denis Maier writes: Just a furter remark: while zero-width-spaces can be used as a workaround, they may create problems in some export formats. E.g., they will mess up hyphenation in latex. I think if read somewhere that those can be removed

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

Am 02.12.2021 um 13:00 schrieb Ihor Radchenko: Juan Manuel Macías writes: intra-*word* works just fine for me. I think what Denis is referring to is a construction of the type *intra*word, which, if I'm not mistaken, is not supported and can only be achieved by inserting a zero width

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

Am 02.12.2021 um 13:08 schrieb Eric S Fraga: My solution, in these case, is to fall back to LaTeX using @@latex:...@@ (and equivalent for HTML, if desired). Not pretty but I need this so seldom that I am happy with the org emphasis support generally. Hi Eric, Am 02.12.2021 um 13:08

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

Hi Timothy, Am 02.12.2021 um 12:58 schrieb Timothy: Hi Denis, Currently, org syntax doesn’t officially seem to support intra-word emphasis. Am I missing something? I’d describe it as supported via-zero width spaces. You may be interested in

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

Denis Maier writes: > > Just a furter remark: while zero-width-spaces can be used as a > workaround, they may create problems in some export formats. E.g., they > will mess up hyphenation in latex. I think if read somewhere that those > can be removed with hooks or filters, but I think that

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

Marco Wahl writes: > Is there a recommended way to insert a zero with space? C-x 8

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

Hi Denis, > Currently, org syntax doesn’t officially seem to support intra-word emphasis. > Am > I missing something? I’d describe it as supported via-zero width spaces. You may be interested in . > If the assessment is

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

Denis Maier writes: > Yes, Juan Manuel. That's it. > > See for reference: > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1218238/how-to-make-part-of-a-word-bold-in-org-mode Please, do not use that stackoverflow answer. It is not officially supported, breaks exporting, and will not work anymore in

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

Juan Manuel Macías writes: >> intra-*word* works just fine for me. >> > I think what Denis is referring to is a construction of the type > *intra*word, which, if I'm not mistaken, is not supported and can only > be achieved by inserting a zero width space. I see. We had a discussion about

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

Am 02.12.2021 um 12:42 schrieb Marco Wahl: Hi! Currently, org syntax doesn't officially seem to support intra-word emphasis. Am I missing something? intra-*word* works just fine for me. Best, Ihor I think what Denis is referring to is a construction of the type *intra*word, which, if I'm

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

Hi! >>> Currently, org syntax doesn't officially seem to support intra-word >>> emphasis. Am I missing something? >> >> intra-*word* works just fine for me. >> >> Best, >> Ihor > > I think what Denis is referring to is a construction of the type > *intra*word, which, if I'm not mistaken, is not

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

Yes, Juan Manuel. That's it. See for reference: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1218238/how-to-make-part-of-a-word-bold-in-org-mode Best, Denis Am 02.12.2021 um 12:30 schrieb Juan Manuel Macías: Hi Denis and Ihor, Ihor Radchenko writes: Denis Maier writes: Currently, org syntax

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

Hi Denis and Ihor, Ihor Radchenko writes: > Denis Maier writes: > >> Currently, org syntax doesn't officially seem to support intra-word >> emphasis. Am I missing something? > > intra-*word* works just fine for me. > > Best, > Ihor I think what Denis is referring to is a construction of the

Re: Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

Denis Maier writes: > Currently, org syntax doesn't officially seem to support intra-word > emphasis. Am I missing something? intra-*word* works just fine for me. Best, Ihor

Org-syntax: Intra-word markup

Hi everyone, while we're at discussing org syntax anyway, I thought it's time to bring up another syntax question: Currently, org syntax doesn't officially seem to support intra-word emphasis. Am I missing something? If the assessment is correct: Is there a reason for this? And, shouldn't