From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Konstantin Kliakhandler Subject: Re: Bug: \uline produced inside \section in latex export [8.2.5h (8.2.5h-30-gdd810b-elpa @ /home/user/.emacs.d/elpa/org-20140303/)] Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 23:04:00 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87ior7qzua.fsf@slumpy.org> <87fvmbktzz.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87k3bmoe3o.fsf@gmail.com> <87ppleiqo6.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <874n2qo4zh.fsf@gmail.com> <87ob0ysbh8.fsf@slumpy.org> <87vbv6mmrt.fsf@gmail.com> <874n2qcgcx.fsf@yahoo.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2f4e6975f0a04f53858aa Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37026) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WRT5h-0005oa-Ac for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2014 17:04:33 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WRT5Z-0004yM-1R for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2014 17:04:29 -0400 Received: from mail-qc0-f175.google.com ([209.85.216.175]:37290) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WRT5Y-0004x9-UH for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2014 17:04:20 -0400 Received: by mail-qc0-f175.google.com with SMTP id e16so4402068qcx.34 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2014 14:04:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <874n2qcgcx.fsf@yahoo.fr> 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: Nicolas Richard Cc: Bastien , emacs-orgmode@gnu.org, Nicolas Goaziou --001a11c2f4e6975f0a04f53858aa Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hello, On Mar 22, 2014 7:06 PM, "Nicolas Richard" wrote: > I'd go even a little further : assuming it makes sense to underline > within a section header, does it also make sense to propagate that > formatting to the toc and/or header of the document ? If not, I suggest > exporting as: > \section[not-so-plain text]{\uline{not-so-plain} \textbf{text}} > I think it sometimes does make sense to highlight in the TOC, for instance if the highlight was intended to emphasize a specific word. Also I don't know why there was underlining in the first place. If we're > asking to underline all section titles, then it might make sense to > redefine e.g. \section to do so (packages titlesec might help). > There was underlining because I wanted to emphasize a single word in the heading (the example I posted was minimal for demonstration purposes), not because all exported sections are underlined. Cheers, Kosta --001a11c2f4e6975f0a04f53858aa Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello,

On Mar 22, 2014 7:06 PM, "Nicolas Richard&q= uot; <theonewiththeevillook@yahoo.fr> wrote:
I'd go even a little further : assuming it makes sense to underline
within a section header, does it also make sense to propagate that
formatting to the toc and/or header of the document ? If not, I suggest
exporting as:
\section[not-so-plain text]{\uline{not-so-plain} \textbf{text}}
=C2=A0
I think it sometimes does make sense to highligh= t in the TOC, for instance if the highlight was intended to emphasize a spe= cific word.

Also I don't know why there was underlining in the first place. If we&#= 39;re
asking to underline all section titles, then it might make sense to
redefine e.g. \section to do so (packages titlesec might help).
=C2=A0
There was underlining because I wanted to emphas= ize a single word in the heading (the example I posted was minimal for demo= nstration purposes), not because all exported sections are underlined.

Cheers,
Kosta
--001a11c2f4e6975f0a04f53858aa--