From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rasmus Subject: Re: [ox, patch] Add #+SUBTITLE Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 01:05:21 +0100 Message-ID: <87y4mo60ji.fsf@gmx.us> References: <87a8z7z20k.fsf@gmx.us> <87vbht2kri.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87sicx6of8.fsf@gmx.us> <87oanku5d0.fsf@wmi.amu.edu.pl> <87384w7iwy.fsf@gmx.us> <87lhiotyc7.fsf@wmi.amu.edu.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48704) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YZpsE-0003K2-Di for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 20:05:43 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YZps9-00072B-Um for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 20:05:42 -0400 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:56880) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YZps9-000727-OL for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 20:05:37 -0400 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YZps4-000560-HY for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 01:05:32 +0100 Received: from tsn109-201-154-154.dyn.nltelcom.net ([109.201.154.154]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 01:05:32 +0100 Received: from rasmus by tsn109-201-154-154.dyn.nltelcom.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 01:05:32 +0100 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 Hi, First: Please don't take me being critical as meaning I'm necessarily negative about. I'm just minimizing risk over the expectation. Marcin Borkowski writes: >> - What happens when you cannot maintain it any longer? Note also that the > > Either the project dies, or someone takes it over. The latter seems to > be quite common in the LaTeX community, so I wouldn't be very worried. That does not seem like something you'd want to base Org on... >> scope is somewhat different as a typical latex package solves a problem >> like "provide good tables" or "enhance itemize 2e" (ei2e). Such >> packages are fairly easy to replace (e.g. sugfigure → subcaption). > > Fair enough. Not a problem imho, though. A “package” has a very wide > definition in the LaTeX world, and I explained why a package would be > better than a class (even though doing it as a package would be a bit > more work with ensuring that it works with wide range of classes). I am talking about latex packages and the example mentions real latex packages. A class would be a sure route to failure. A packages is fine. But it's beside the point. You argue, if I understand correctly, for amending ox-latex to rely on a very specialized package, which we may or may not easily be able to replace should it come to that. >> - I don't want latex code generated by org to a "special flavor" like with >> LyX. > In my vision, the huge preamble is replaced by \usepackage{orglatex} or > something like this, and instead of, say, OK. > : \section{{\bfseries\sffamily TODO} hello\hfill{}\textsc{world}} > > (how is that not a “special flavor”?) you would have > > : \section{\orgtodo{TODO}hello\orgtags{world}} > > or, if we decide to do a major surgery on LaTeX’s sectioning mechanism > (which is debatable), even > > : \section[orgtodo=TODO,orgtags=world]{hello} Both are appealing. >> - Why can the issues you have in mind not be solved by a specialized >> derived backend? Such as ox-beamer or ox-koma-letter. > > This seems to bug you enough that you basically asked twice;-). No. Here is ask why you can't settle for another Org-mode backend, rather than a new latex package. This can even live in contrib without signing the copyright agreement with FSF. E.g. you could get a very similar result to what you are talking about by defining the macros at export-level (e.g. write-out \providecommand\orgtodo...) and allowed writing a preamble or similar (if you really mind long preambles). That way anybody would also be able to customize on the latex end, if they so desire. > As I said, people use Org-mode in various ways. [...]. For other > people, [they make] a draft in Org they continue their work in LaTeX > (...). For them, human-readable (and editable) LaTeX code is a nice > thing. Good point. > Also, adding some options in a LaTeX package seems to have less friction > than in Org. In the former, you just code it and make a pull request to > the package maintainer (or send a patch, or even just file a feature > request). In the latter, you bug Nicolas, and he has to think about the > impact of your feature request for other backends (because Org is not > LaTeX-centric!). I don't see the difference. —Rasmus -- You people at the NSA are becoming my new best friends!