From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marcin Borkowski Subject: Re: [ox, patch] Add #+SUBTITLE Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 21:47:23 +0100 Message-ID: <87oanku5d0.fsf@wmi.amu.edu.pl> References: <87a8z7z20k.fsf@gmx.us> <87vbht2kri.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87sicx6of8.fsf@gmx.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47451) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YZmmn-0007iY-Sx for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 16:47:55 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YZmmg-0006hB-Pl for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 16:47:53 -0400 Received: from msg.wmi.amu.edu.pl ([2001:808:114:2::50]:46268) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YZmmV-0006da-1v for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 16:47:46 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by msg.wmi.amu.edu.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66CBE5AE98 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 21:47:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from msg.wmi.amu.edu.pl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (msg.wmi.amu.edu.pl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d8hz6JHnJqwO for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 21:47:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (117-116.echostar.pl [213.156.117.116]) by msg.wmi.amu.edu.pl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 15A485AE84 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 21:47:30 +0100 (CET) In-reply-to: <87sicx6of8.fsf@gmx.us> 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 On 2015-03-22, at 16:29, Rasmus wrote: > IMO it is. The only place where there's a "hack" is in ox-latex and > that's cause article is the default class. If you prefer, it can just > output to the \subtitle{=C2=B7} by default and say it's KOMA-script onl= y. That > seems harsh, though. Hi there, being like a Pavlov's dog trained to dribble on seeing the word LaTeX;-), let me add my 2 cents here. [TL;DR: imho, the right way to do LaTeX export is to prepare a dedicated package for Org-mode generated files (easy/medium), arrange for it to be included in all major TeX distros (easy) and simplify the LaTeX exporter to comply with it (easy). This could greatly enhance the quality of PDFs produced by Org-mode and make modifying their look easier on the Org side. I could do the LaTeX side of the work. Now the question is: does the community /want/ it.] The (default) LaTeX markup sucks. (It=E2=80=99s not about Org-mode-produ= ced LaTeX files, it=E2=80=99s about LaTeX itself.) And I'm telling that as a long-time TeX and LaTeX user and fan. I would strongly suggest not caring too much about =E2=80=9Cwhat does LaTeX support out-of-the-box=E2=80= =9D =E2=80=93 in fact, it supports almost nothing without a heap of packages. What I really think Org-mode community should do is the following. We (if I may use that pronoun here) should prepare a dedicated Org LaTeX package, properly supporting all Org=E2=80=99s fancy stuff like tags, timestamps, todo keywords etc., and allowing for parametrizing their look-and-feel through a reasonable LaTeX interface. I think it should /not/ be a class, since then people would be free to use it with article/amsart/koma-script/memoir/whatever. This is not very difficult nor time-consuming, and in fact I might be tempted to do it (more on that below). This would require (simple) changes in the LaTeX exporter (generally, simplifying it); this I cannot do, since I don=E2=80=99t have= the FSF papers signed (and I don=E2=80=99t want to sign them). OTOH, the pac= kage does not have this problem, since LaTeX licensing is much more sane than Emacs=E2=80=99; this package should be imho part of every TeX distro (whi= ch is important, and in fact easy to arrange), so that we could send an Org-generated LaTeX file to any TeX user. The biggest advantage would be the possibility of exporting e.g. TODO lists or agendas to LaTeX, and have them formatted as TODO lists and agendas and not as =E2=80=9Carticles=E2=80=9D. Currently, LaTeX export i= s more or less limited to scientific articles (unless you want to tweak it /a lot/ so that it looks even remotely reasonable), where you don=E2=80=99t really c= are about layout and design, since they are going to be changed by the journal anyway. Just think about the possibilities. We could make a TODO list in Org, and send it (as a pdf file) for non-Org-users to print, and it could look like a TODO-list. (I guess there are still lots of people who depend on paper todo lists; I do, for sure, though I make them manually.) We could have an option (on Org side, which would translate to a LaTeX one) to have more Word-like layout. (You can say what you want about Word =E2=80=93 my personal opinion is that it is unsuitable fo= r documents larger/more complex than a piece of paper with an arrow showing the direction to the restroom =E2=80=93 but sometimes, especially= for short memos/notes, LaTeX=E2=80=99s extremely generic spacing can be annoy= ing. Of course, you could just load the savetrees package =E2=80=93 but let me= make a short, informal and unscientific survey here: how many of you would find it useful, but never thought that something like that exists? If, OTOH, there would be such option for the LaTeX exporter, it would be right there, in Org-mode manual. In fact, since not everyone might follow this thread, let me start another one, with this very question in a minute;-).) The added benefit would be much cleaner structure of Org-generated LaTeX files. Currently, they have a huge preamble and a few hard-wired things. Summing up: as we know, there are many ways people use Org-mode, but the current PDF exporter (through LaTeX=E2=80=99s article class, heavily bias= ed toward scientific material) is suboptimal for all but one of these ways. As I said, if there is some consensus on whether something like that is needed, I can start working on it. (In fact, it might be a fun side-project.) I would estimate that I=E2=80=99d need a week or two to c= ome up with a proof-of-concept, sort-of-working thing, and something like two months with a first production version. (Though I don=E2=80=99t have tim= e for a project like this now, realistically I could start in August.) (Let me thank here for Org-mode clocking feature =E2=80=93 the above estimate = is due to the fact that I did some work on coding a dedicated, quite complex LaTeX class for a journal, and I know that it has taken me about 32 hours as of now. Assuming an average pace of 2-4 hours a week, and assuming about 16 hours for a first version of this one =E2=80=93 it woul= d be a much simpler project =E2=80=93 gives 1-2 months or so. NB. Fun fact: t= he work on the class for the journal I=E2=80=99m talking about includes coding so= me Emacs Lisp to extract metadata from LaTeX (and aux) files and generate XML files for uploading pdfs to the journal site.) WDYT? > =E2=80=94Rasmus Best, --=20 Marcin Borkowski http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science Adam Mickiewicz University