From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Rasmus <rasmus@gmx.us>
Subject: Re: [patch] ox-koma-letter.el: credit [3/4]
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 19:16:07 +0200
Message-ID: <8761yb7x60.fsf@pank.eu>
References: <87wqqusder.fsf@pank.eu> <87ip2esccc.fsf@pank.eu>
	<20130521165658.GA56408@client199-78.wlan.hu-berlin.de>
	<87zjvo9qwy.fsf@pank.eu> <20130521200650.GB58739@kenny.local>
	<87zjvo7xkl.fsf@pank.eu> <20130522145312.GB61443@kenny.local>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:40998)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rasmus@gmx.us>) id 1UfCeB-0008CE-Gy
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 22 May 2013 13:16:24 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rasmus@gmx.us>) id 1UfCe5-0005dd-J7
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 22 May 2013 13:16:19 -0400
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.22]:58109)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rasmus@gmx.us>) id 1UfCe5-0005cp-8u
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 22 May 2013 13:16:13 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20130522145312.GB61443@kenny.local> (Viktor Rosenfeld's message
	of "Wed, 22 May 2013 16:53:12 +0200")
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: listuser36@gmail.com
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org

Viktor Rosenfeld <listuser36@gmail.com> writes:

>> Ah, you mean the textsc?  Perhaps it is a bit eccentric.  But you're
>> bringing up a good point.  It should recognize [p]+s and perhaps even
>> order them. . .
>
> If there is no PS prefix set, users could simply write these out
> themselves. I don't think it is much of a burden. Recognizing multiple
> :P[+]S: tags in code seems like overkill to me. The all go into the same
> \ps, don't they?

No, you'd want have
\ps{ps:one}
\ps{pps:two}
\ps{pps:three}.

Either they could be different subtrees 
* ps :ps: 
** ps-one
  ps:one
** ps-two
  ps:two
[...]

or they could just be ordered the way they were in the buffer.
Probably that's easier.

> The latter example does not really work for me because I often write
> letters below a TODO headline (as opposed to a dedicated file). So I
> restrict export to a subtree which would not work if I'm below the
> letter headline. In my case I would use something like this:
>
> #+BEGIN_EXAMPLE
> * TODO write letter
> :PROPERTIES:
> :EXPORT_OPENING: ...
> ...
> :END:
>
> The letter goes here.
>
> ** TO :TO:
> ...
> #+END_EXAMPLE
> I have a capture template setup for letters, so I don't normally have to
> add the address information manually. I would probably stick to the old
> format and use headlines if I have a PS and so on.

Cool, you should write an article about!

-- 
Don't panic!!!