From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marcin Borkowski Subject: Re: Bug: dates in heading break beamer export Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 18:33:59 +0200 Message-ID: <20131001183359.4a613ac8@aga-netbook> References: <524801E3.7040709@toel.it> <87bo3bwug5.fsf@gmail.com> <20130929172751.4644b537@aga-netbook> <5249A0AB.7080408@toel.it> <20130930190538.5397f472@aga-netbook> <87txh156a8.fsf@gmail.com> 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]:50713) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VR2th-0000EC-BC for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Oct 2013 12:34:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VR2tf-0002IZ-Lw for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Oct 2013 12:34:05 -0400 Received: from msg.wmi.amu.edu.pl ([2001:808:114:2::50]:37510) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VR2te-0002IH-UY for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Oct 2013 12:34:03 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by msg.wmi.amu.edu.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F45C4AC78 for ; Tue, 1 Oct 2013 18:34:01 +0200 (CEST) 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 A9Ew2DbgwKze for ; Tue, 1 Oct 2013 18:34:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from aga-netbook (unknown [IPv6:2001:808:114:6:1100:45ec:b0a0:2b3e]) by msg.wmi.amu.edu.pl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D462A4AC41 for ; Tue, 1 Oct 2013 18:34:00 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <87txh156a8.fsf@gmail.com> 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 Dnia 2013-10-01, o godz. 18:01:51 Nicolas Goaziou napisa=C5=82(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.) >=20 > 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. > >>=20 > >> But org-mode allow this! > >>=20 > >> 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"? >=20 > 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, --=20 Marcin Borkowski http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski Adam Mickiewicz University