From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rasmus Subject: Re: [patch] ox-koma-letter Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2013 18:54:37 +0100 Message-ID: <87bob1pu02.fsf@pank.eu> References: <87vc9gkund.fsf@pank.eu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:59092) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UBqio-0006yX-U9 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Mar 2013 12:59:49 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UBqin-00050d-F8 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Mar 2013 12:59:46 -0500 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:44107) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UBqin-00050Z-92 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Mar 2013 12:59:45 -0500 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UBqj6-0002Pl-Ie for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Mar 2013 19:00:04 +0100 Received: from dynamic-adsl-94-34-146-228.clienti.tiscali.it ([94.34.146.228]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 02 Mar 2013 19:00:04 +0100 Received: from rasmus by dynamic-adsl-94-34-146-228.clienti.tiscali.it with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 02 Mar 2013 19:00:04 +0100 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@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Alan Schmitt writes: Michael Strey writes:> Rasmus, >> In fact to use the scrlttr2 support in Org I had to adjust a LCO files >> because it's currently loaded after LATEX_HEADER arguments (so all >> customization was overwritten). I didn't like that. > > After this remark I checked my changes and compared them with the > default code and behaviour of ox-koma-letter with the result that I > reverted all of my deletions. The mentioned feature provides just the right > hierarchy for my use case. > > - LCO overrides everything > - options in the file override options in customization > - options in customization override defaults in ox-koma-letter > > Nevertheless I agree that the "nil check" solution would allow more > flexibility. Cool, I'll look at it when time permits (which will not be next week). >> > Maybe we should write a user guide *before* further implementation >> > steps. >> >> I agree. A "question zero" is whether we eventually want to have an >> org-letter which could, in principle, output to something different >> than scrlttr2. > > IMO one *good* solution for writing letters is enough. scrlttr2 is > perfect for me and covers at least European conventions about how > letters should look like. I don't know which LaTeX classes people from > other parts of the globe prefer. > > At least we should try to make the user interface (the list of > variables) universal enough to cover other classes as well. I agree on semi-universal arguments and retaining the current specialization to scrlttr2. -- If you can mix business and politics wonderful things can happen!