Re: Bug: dates in heading break beamer export

[Marcin Borkowski <mbork@wmi.amu.edu.pl>]

Dnia 2013-10-01, o godz. 18:01:51
Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaziou@gmail.com> napisał(a):

> > Sounds good for me.  (NB: there's a similar problems with tags,
> > AFAIR. And (AFAIR!) it's even worse, since the exporter uses a
> > low-level TeX command \hfill.)
> 
> Well, there is `org-latex-active-timestamp-format',
> `org-latex-inactive-timestamp-format' and even filters can do it.

Maybe, I was talking about the default.  (And I even don't know now how
to correct it, since LaTeX does not have a notion of a "section tag" -
so there's no obvious way to represent such an entity in it!)

> It is also technically possible to write in ox-latex a section-local
> specific export back-end that would translate differently some objects
> in a \section{...} command. But that would make the export a bit more
> unpredictable.

Sorry, I did not get that idea.  We are not talking about
converting /different/ objects into /sections/, are we?

> Of course, in a few cases, `latex' back-end does its best to
> circumvent possible problems (i.e. nested footnotes), but this is
> nowhere near a general rule. It's usually a lot of work for a tiny
> corner case.

Agreed.

> >> > In general, putting formatting commands in \section title etc.,
> >> > even if not erroneous, is considered a bad practice.
> >> 
> >> But org-mode allow this!
> >> 
> >> I think that if something is allowed in org-mode syntax but not by
> >> the underlining tools used for export, the exporter should take
> >> care to find a suitable workaround.
> >
> > Definitely agreed.  The point is, what is a "suitable workaround"?
> 
> I disagree. This is just unrealistic. There are many packages
> involving many quirks. We cannot afford to provide a workaround to
> all (or even most) of them, assuming one exists.

Well, in this particular case I can definitely live with what Org
gives.  (The fact that I don't use the exporter too often helps;).)
In other words: the status quo *is* (more or less) a "suitable
workaround", at least for me.

> Also, the OP is making a false assumption. The underlining tool allows
> \texit in the section \command, i.e., you can type it in a "tex" file.
> You will get a compilation error, exactly as if you do the same
> mistake in Org. Why Org should be smarter in this case?

Hm, I did not understand this point:(.

My opinion (as a LaTeX user and hacker, if I may say so) is that LaTeX
exporter may be not optimal, but it is decent enough.  I agree that
it is a lot of work to make it better, and even then it's not enough,
since there is no "canonical" way to transform some Org-specific things
(like tags) to LaTeX syntax - so someone will be unhappy anyway...

What is important here (as I hinted previously) is the point of having
a LaTeX exporter: do we aim at pdf, not caring about the readability
and elegance of the (then intermediate) LaTeX file, or do we aim at a
good quality LaTeX file to do further (manual!) work on it, including
(but not limited to) "visual tuning".  I'm sure there are some people in
both camps, and satisfying all of them may be tricky.

Now that I think of it, writing a completely new LaTeX exporter might
actually be a lot of fun - I'm afraid, though, that I don't have enough
time for it now...

> Regards,

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Adam Mickiewicz University