On 2012-10-21, Dave Kuhlman wrote:
>> From: Guenter Milde
> I've merged that info into config.txt and reformated it for
> consistency. It's now committed to the SVN repository.
>> BTW, I'd also like to discuss and solve the "normalization" of "code"
>> and "math" handling across writers:
>> Does the "math" directive and role work with odt output?
> odf-odt writer does not provide any special support for the math
> directive. Here is a snippet from writers/odf_odt/__init__.py::
> def visit_math(self, node):
> self.document.reporter.warning('"math" role not supported',
This looks definitely like work ahead. AFAIK, ODF uses MathML for
representing mathematical content, so we might re-use the MathML support
for the HTML and XML writers and add the required wrapping for ODF.
I plan to move the conversion of math formats (e.g. LaTeX -> MathML or
ASCIImath -> MathML) in a transform. Maybe we can start with the work on
OTF-math after that.
>> Is there still odt-specific syntax for "code" snippets?
> There is no special reST-specific syntax for code blocks in the odf-odt
> writer. I don't believe this is what you are asking, but, there are
> special styles used to control the appearance of literal code blocks
> and syntax highlighting. See:
> That's analogous to saying that there are special CSS styles in the
> HTML writer stylesheet.
That is OK.
But how about the "syntax-highlight" config setting? Could this be "merged"
with the setting from html/latex writers:
Token name set for parsing code with Pygments: one of
"long", "short", or "none (no parsing)". Default is