From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Sebastien Vauban" Subject: Re: [New exporter] Wrong export to LaTeX Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:49:03 +0200 Message-ID: <80391eg8ls.fsf@somewhere.org> References: <80txu1ma6t.fsf@somewhere.org> <87bog9401p.fsf@gmail.com> <20121011165232.GB15182@kuru.dyndns-at-home.com> <877gqw51z9.fsf@gmail.com> <20121012102434.GA24769@kuru.dyndns-at-home.com> <80ipagvtjj.fsf@somewhere.org> <20121012120543.GD24769@kuru.dyndns-at-home.com> <80k3urqyar.fsf@somewhere.org> <871ugzfovj.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org To: emacs-orgmode-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org Hi Nicolas, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > "Sebastien Vauban" writes: >> Suvayu Ali wrote: >>>> However, I thought that LaTeX_CLASS had been renamed EXPORT_LaTeX_CLASS, >>>> but when using the latter, I get frames inside an `article' documentclass >>>> type of document -- while using `C-c E l O' (for Beamer)? That results in >>>> a weird document... >>> >>> I believe that is the property name only for subtree export. So when >>> exporting a file, use: >>> >>> #+LaTeX_CLASS: beamer >>> >>> for subtree export use: >>> >>> * Beamer presentation >>> :PROPERTIES: >>> :EXPORT_LaTeX_CLASS: beamer >>> :END: >> >> Nicolas, do you confirm the fact that keywords differ whether they apply to >> the file or to a subtree? > > Yes. > >> If yes, wouldn't make sense to remove such a distinction, or (at the other >> extreme of the spectrum) to make all keywords share that same feature >> (prefixing with "EXPORT_" for subtrees)? > > Note that it isn't a new feature from the new export engine, merely a > generalization from the old exporter, which already distinguished #+DATE: > and :EXPORT_DATE:, #+TITLE: and :EXPORT_TITLE:... > > There's little incentive for users to create new keywords on the fly. On the > other hand, they may want to add node properties. That's why export keywords > should be made as simple as possible and export properties should pollute as > little namespace as possible. > > Therefore, I think the current state is good. It will be properly documented > once the new exporter becomes mainstream (but the rule is simple anyway). I'm glad that such a rule exists: #+KEYWORD: for *file* export properties | v #+EXPORT_KEYWORD: for *subtree* export properties #+LaTeX_CLASS follows a rule which escaped me. Your explanation does make a lot of sense. No change! Best regards, Seb -- Sebastien Vauban