From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Goaziou Subject: Re: Target and link text normalised to `orgtargetn' Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 20:36:01 +0200 Message-ID: <87fv7wdkz2.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> References: <20150414092530.GC2957@chitra.no-ip.org> <20150414120852.GD2957@chitra.no-ip.org> <87zj699ez9.fsf@gmx.us> <20150416001830.GC14328@chitra.no-ip.org> <87egnk9ycz.fsf@gmx.us> <87k2x9cddu.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <20150419121305.GZ14328@chitra.no-ip.org> <87618smg2i.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87d230rzak.fsf@gmx.us> <87vbgsdw2c.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87pp70qi9w.fsf@gmx.us> <87oamkdu5v.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87lhhoqbsc.fsf@gmx.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48774) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yju3K-0001Wc-67 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Apr 2015 14:34:47 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yju3J-0003AU-7O for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Apr 2015 14:34:46 -0400 Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([2001:4b98:c:538::195]:50778) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yju3J-00039v-2Q for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Apr 2015 14:34:45 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87lhhoqbsc.fsf@gmx.us> (rasmus@gmx.us's message of "Sun, 19 Apr 2015 19:16:03 +0200") 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: Rasmus Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Rasmus writes: > That's what I meant. Or rather a wrapper like org-latex--label. A > mapping like the one that was reverted for ox-latex only. Or are there > pitfalls in that approach? It will not give you predictability either since you cannot guess "4" in "sec:4". Also, it is dangerous since a user could use \label{sec:4} for something different. Hence the `gensym'-like approach: we're pretty safe with "orgheadline4". What is the real benefit of "sec:4" over "orgheadline4"? Aesthetics? > It does not IMO. I would rather not label sections manually. I don't understand that part. Would you mind elaborating a bit? Regards,