bugEmacs Muse - Bugs: bug #8475, Including files and using a...

 
 
Show feedback again

bug #8475: Including files and using a specific publishing style

Submitted by:  Michael Olson <mwolson>
Submitted on:  Sun 11 Feb 2007 07:18:34 PM UTC  
 
Category: museSeverity: 3 - Normal
Priority: 1 - LaterStatus: None
Privacy: PublicAssigned to: None
Open/Closed: Open

Add a New Comment (Rich MarkupRich Markup):
   

You are not logged in

Please log in, so followups can be emailed to you.

 

Sun 11 Feb 2007 07:18:34 PM UTC, original submission:

Christian Stra├čer writes:

Hello Michael,

thanks for thinking about the problem.
In my case some projects organized with muse are wikis. But I also use
planner-el together with remember-el for planning and making notes.
Sometimes it occurs that I'd like to import planner pages in muse-wiki
project pages (especially cause of the notes section; as I use a lot the
ability to put notes on different pages, I have some "notes-only" pages
organized in categories (so: something like a multi-category blog)).
I think the first option you mentioned (the one with the manual style
choice) allows more freedom. In my case also the second would do.
Another interesting feature would be to be able to insert sections only,
like:
<include file="../plans/Work.muse" style="planner-html" section="Notes">

Context:

I hadn't thought before about the possibility of including Muse pages
that are published to different styles. The problem occurs because
the markup for the current page is used on the inserted page.

I've start to work on a fix, but I want to get some feedback from the
community at large before I change anything.

There are several possibilities. One is to allow the publishing style
to be specified as part of the <include> tag. For example:

<include file="../plans/Work.muse" style="planner-html">

Another possibility would be to try and figure out what publishing
style to use for the remote file based on its entry in
muse-project-alist. Muse has logic that can be used to pick the
remote publishing style that has the same extension as the output of
the current file will have. Then, the following would "just work".

<include file="../plans/Work.muse">

So does anyone see any use case for the first possibility? Does
anyone feel particularly strongly that the second possibility is
better?

(Or we could even do the second, but allow the first, if someone
specifies something for "style". I'd still like to know at least one
person would bother using it, though, before I implement that.)

Michael Olson <mwolson>
Project Administrator

 

(Note: upload size limit is set to 1024 kB, after insertion of the required escape characters.)

Attach File(s):
   
   
Comment:
   

No files currently attached

 

Depends on the following items: None found

Items that depend on this one: None found

 

Carbon-Copy List
  • -unavailable- added by mwolson (Submitted the item)
  • -unavailable- added by mwolson
  •  

    Do you think this task is very important?
    If so, you can click here to add your encouragement to it.
    This task has 0 encouragements so far.

    Only logged-in users can vote.

     

    Please enter the title of George Orwell's famous dystopian book (it's a date):

     

     

    Follows 1 latest change.

    Date Changed By Updated Field Previous Value => Replaced By
    Sun 11 Feb 2007 07:18:34 PM UTCmwolsonCarbon-Copy-=>Added -unavailable-
    Show feedback again

    Back to the top


    Powered by Savane 3.1-cleanup