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/)]

[Rasmus <rasmus@gmx.us>]

Nicolas Richard <theonewiththeevillook@yahoo.fr> writes:

> Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaziou@gmail.com> writes:
>> It is technically possible to use \underline (hard-coded) in sections
>> and \uline (or whatever is defined in`org-latex-text-markup-alist')
>> everywhere else.
>>
>> Is there any downside to this proposal?
>
> Disclaimer : While I do use LaTeX, I rarely use the exporter, and never
> underline in sections.
>
> (The shed should be green, obviously.)
>
> I don't know why \uline doesn't work, but while \underline works, it
> does so with many warnings. I think the reason is that hyperref tries to
> add the text to the PDF TOC (usually a pane in the pdf viewer), and that
> supports very little to no formatting.
>
> Rasmus' suggestion seemed good, i.e.
> \texorpdfstring{\uline{SECTION}}{SECTION}
>
> 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}}

This we cannot know before hand and for all cases.  I cannot think of
any case where you would use any kind of styling—other than math—in
section titles.  Yet others might and I think this suggestion is too
strong of an "assumption".

Perhaps it could be provided as an option. 

> 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).

Yeah, that would be a better approach if the underlines are not
one-off. . .

Rasmus

-- 
C is for Cookie