I'm currently using BlueCloth to process Markdown in Ruby and show it as HTML, but in one location I need it as plain text (without some of the Markdown). Is there a way to achieve that?
Is there a markdown-to-plain-text method? Is there an html-to-plain-text method that I could feel the result of BlueCloth?
RedCarpet gem has a Redcarpet::Render::StripDown renderer which "turns Markdown into plaintext".
Copy and modify it to suit your needs.
Or use it like this:
Redcarpet::Markdown.new(Redcarpet::Render::StripDown).render(markdown)
Converting HTML to plain text with Ruby is not a problem, but of course you'll lose all markup. If you only want to get rid of some of the Markdown syntax, it probably won't yield the result you're looking for.
The bottom line is that unrendered Markdown is intended to be used as plain text, therefore converting it to plain text doesn't really make sense. All Ruby implementations that I have seen follow the same interface, which does not offer a way to strip syntax (only including to_html, and text, which returns the original Markdown text).
It's not ruby, but one of the formats Pandoc now writes is 'plain'. Here's some arbitrary markdown:
# My Great Work
## First Section
Here we discuss my difficulties with [Markdown](http://wikipedia.org/Markdown)
## Second Section
We begin with a quote:
> We hold these truths to be self-evident ...
then some code:
#! /usr/bin/bash
That's *all*.
(Not sure how to turn off the syntax highlighting!) Here's the associated 'plain':
My Great Work
=============
First Section
-------------
Here we discuss my difficulties with Markdown
Second Section
--------------
We begin with a quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident ...
then some code:
#! /usr/bin/bash
That's all.
You can get an idea what it does with the different elements it parses out of documents from the definition of plainify in pandoc/blob/master/src/Text/Pandoc/Writers/Markdown.hs in the Github repository; there is also a tutorial that shows how easy it is to modify the behavior.
Related
I'm looking to propose some small tweaks/improvements to my employer's coding standard written in Github markdown (*.md).
I've prepped by reviewing a couple of references this markdown language's formatting conventions.
From my readings I see that I can add URLs in at least two different ways:
Standard HTML:
TEXT
Markdown style links:
[TEXT](LINK_URL)
...and code markdown is written as:
Markdown style:
```LANGUAGE
MY CODE;
```
Implicit code denotation via 4 space indent.
However, I've been unable to find a reference on whether you can include a hyperlink inside a block of code (i.e. to the location of that object's source in your repository).
i.e. I want to do something like:
```javascript
_myQObject: <a title="QML Source for MyQObject" href="URL_TO_SOURCE">MyQObject {}
```
That does not work, however, and I've been unable to find documentation explicitly stating whether this is possible or not.
How can I include a link to a URL within a chunk of formatted Github markdown?
Is this possible?
For reference the basic style guides I've reviewed are:
Github Guides: "Mastering Markdown"
Adam-P's "Markdown Cheatsheet"
How can I include a link to a URL within a chunk of formatted Github markdown?
As far as I know this is not possible.
The original Markdown specification says:
With a code span, ampersands and angle brackets are encoded as HTML entities automatically, which makes it easy to include example HTML tags.
…
Regular Markdown syntax is not processed within code blocks. E.g., asterisks are just literal asterisks within a code block. This means it’s also easy to use Markdown to write about Markdown’s own syntax.
I haven't seen anything in the GitHub Markdown docs to suggest that they have added support for links in code blocks, and nothing I've tried has worked.
I also haven't seen this feature in any other Markdown implementations.
This is a late reply, but for people who come here hoping for a solution, there is a way to add links inside preformatted blocks. If you use an HTML block with <pre> ... </pre> instead of using the code block formatting sequence (i.e., don't use fenced code blocks or indented code blocks), you can then use <a> elements inside the preformatted text block. E.g.
<pre>
myQObject: MyQObject {}
</pre>
You lose the automatic syntax highlighting provided by "proper" code blocks, so there is a tradeoff.
I have a code block in an org document
#+NAME: result_whatever
#+BEGIN_SRC python :session data :results value :exports none
return(8.1 - 5)
#+END_SRC
which I evaluate inline:
Now, does this work? Let's see: call_result_whatever(). I'd be surprised ...
When exporting to LaTeX, this generates the following:
Now, does this work? Let's see: \texttt{3.1}. I'd be surprised \ldots{}
However, I don't want the results to be displayed in monospace. I want it to be formatted in "normal" upright font, without any special markup.
How can I achieve this?
You should be able to get it work using the optional header arguments which can be added to call_function().
I don't have LaTeX installed on this system so can't fully test the outputs to ensure they come out exactly as desired, I'm using the plain text output to compare instead. However you can use the following syntax as part of your call to modify the results.
Now, does this work? Let's see call_results_whatever()[:results raw].
I'd be surprised ...
Without the [:results raw] the output to Plain Text (Ascii buffer) is Let's see `3.0999999999999996'.. With the added results it becomes Let's see 3.0999999999999996.
For full details of the available results keywords as well as other optional header arguments for the inline blocks please see Evaluation Code Blocks and Results arguments.
this is 5 years later. apparently in org-mode 8.2 or so, a new variable was introduced (documenting in "Evaluating Code Blocks" in the org-mode manual, but this from etc/ORG-NEWS in the source tree):
*** New option: org-babel-inline-result-wrap
If you set this to the following
: (setq org-babel-inline-result-wrap "$%s$")
then inline code snippets will be wrapped into the formatting string.
so, to eliminate \texttt{}
(setq org-babel-inline-result-wrap "%s")
The problem of this type can be solved in two ways:
1: Easy does it:
A plain query-replace on the exported buffer.
Once you're in the LaTeX buffer,
beginning-of-buffer or M-<
query-replace or M-%
enter \texttt as the string that you want to replace
enter nothing as the replacement
continue to replace each match interactively
with y/n or just replace everything with !
2: But I wanna!
The second way is to nag the org-mode mailing list into
implementing a switch or an option for your specific case.
While it's necessary sometimes, it also produces a system
with thousands of switches, which can become unwieldy.
You can try, but I don't recommend.
I've recently taken on a project of document conversion to HTML. That is, a client gives me a .DOC file, and I need to convert the contents to one long HTML file - no styling, no CSS, just clean HTML with paragraph tags, header tags tags, etc.
I found an application that does a pretty good job of automating the first part of it. The problem is that I need to do some advanced find and replace based on strings using variables.
For instance, I have footnotes that were converted properly. They're currently displayed as superscript numbers with the
I'd like to change how the footnote is displayed. Instead of a superscript number 6 for the 6th footnote, I'd like it to show (Note 6)
To do that on the entire document (hundreds of footnotes), I'm wondering if I can do something like:
FIND:
<sup><a name="FN[0-9]" href="FNR[0-9]">[0-9]</a></sup>
REPLACE:
<a name="FN%1" href="FNR%2">(Note %3)</a>
The problem is, I can't find a Find and Replace tool that lets me maintain the variables in the replace area. All I get is the superscript 6 appearing as (Note %3), as well as every other footnote doing the same thing.
Anyone have any ideas on how I can accomplish my task efficiently?
In Perl it would look roughly like this on the command line (I have NOT tested this):
perl -i -p -e's{<sup><a name="(FN\d)" href="(FNR\d)">(\d)</a></sup>}{<a name="$1" href="$2">(Note $3)</a>}' filenames....
-i says "Edit this file in place", -p means "print each line after we do whatever is in the -e switch".
That's assuming you're only looking for a single digit where you have [0-9]. If you want to match FN427, then you change (FN\d) to (FN\d+), for example.
This also assumes that the HTML that are you parsing looks EXACTLY LIKE THAT. If you get some HTML that is <a href=... name=... (with the attributes in opposite order than you have) then it will break. In that case, you'll want to use an HTML parser.
I hope that gives you enough to start with.
I'd like to read the Rails 3 source code on printed paper (and preferably in color).
For example, xv6 did a nice job printing their code. It even has line numbers and an index. The only thing I would like to add is syntax highlighting.
Anyone know how any of this is possible?
Here are two possibilities I found:
1. The Listings Package (could this also generate other formats besides PDF, like HTML?)
ftp://ftp.tex.ac.uk/tex-archive/macros/latex/contrib/listings/listings.pdf o
2. Highlight (does it do indexing?)
http://www.andre-simon.de/
We could even add a rake task, print, that generates an up-to-date PDF.
I recomend you use highlight to turn the code into LaTeX and then use Listings to make it into a PDF, then print!
I need a way to add text comments in "Word style" to a Latex document. I don't mean to comment the source code of the document. What I want is a way to add corrections, suggestions, etc. to the document, so that they don't interrupt the text flow, but that would still make it easy for everyone to know, which part of the sentence they are related to. They should also "disappear" when compiling the document for printing.
At first, I thought about writing a new command, that would just forward the input to \marginpar{}, and when compiling for printing would just make the definition empty. The problem is you have no guarantee where the comments will appear and you will not be able to distinguish them from the other marginpars.
Any idea?
todonotes is another package that makes nice looking callouts. You can see a number of examples in the documentation.
Since LaTeX is a text format, if you want to show someone the differences in a way that they can use them (and cherry pick from them) use the standard diff tool (e.g., diff -u orig.tex new.tex > docdiffs). This is the best way to annotate something like LaTeX documents, and can be easily used by anyone involved in the production of a document from LaTeX sources. You can then use standard LaTeX comments in your patch to explain the changes, and they can be very easily integrated. If the document lives in a version control system of some sort, just use the VCS to generate a patch file that can be reviewed.
I have used changes.sty, which gives basic change colouring:
\added{new text}
\deleted{old text}
\replaced{new text}{old text}
All of these take an optional parameter with the initials of the author who did this change. This results in different colours used, and these initials are displayed superscripted after the changed text.
\replaced[MI]{new text}{old text}
You can hide the change marks by giving the option final to the changes package.
This is very basic, and comments are not supported, but it might help.
My little home-rolled "fixme" tool uses \marginpar where possible and goes inline in places (like captions) where that is hard to arrange. This works out because I don't often use margin paragraphs for other things. This does mean you can't finalize the layout until everything is fixed, but I don't feel much pain from that...
Other than that I heartily agree with Michael about using standard tools and version control.
See also:
Tips for collaboratively editing a LaTeX document (which addresses you main question...)
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/193298/best-practices-in-latex
and a self-plug:
How do I get Emacs to fill sentences, but not paragraphs?
You could also try the trackchanges package.
You can use the changebar package to highlight areas of text that have been affected.
If you don't want to do the markup manually (which can be tedious and interrupt the flow of editing) the neat latexdiff utility will take a diff of your document and produce a version of it with markup added to visually display the changes between the two versions in the typeset output.
This would be my preferred solution, although I haven't tested it out on large, multi-file documents.
The best package I know is Easy Review that provides the commenting functionality into LaTeX environment. For example, you can use the following simple commands such as \add{NEW TEXT}, \remove{OLD TEXT}, \replace{OLD TEXT}{NEW TEXT}, \comment{TEXT}{COMMENT}, \highlight{TEXT}, and \alert{TEXT}.
Some examples can be found here.
The todonotes package looks great, but if that proves too cumbersome to use, a simple solution is just to use footnotes (e.g. in red to separate them from regular footnotes).
Package trackchanges.sty works exactly the way changes.sty. See #Svante's reply.
It has easy to remember commands and you can change how edits will appear after compiling the document. You can also hide the edits for printing.