Re: [PATCH] latex export - title placement

[tsd@tsdye.com (Thomas S. Dye)]

Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com> writes:

> Thomas S. Dye <tsd@tsdye.com> wrote:
>
>> Sebastian Hofer <sebhofer@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > This patch addresses the problem of ambiguous conventions for the
>> > placement of the title related macros (\author, \date,...) with
>> > respect to the main document body in different latex classes. It
>> > introduces the following changes:
>> >
>> > * org-exp.el:
>> >     - added the following options:
>> >       - title-position (tpos)
>> >       - with-title (wtitle)
>> >       - with-author (wauth)
>
> [This is mostly addressed to Sebastian even though I'm replying to Tom's
> reply.]
>
> An empty
>
> #+AUTHOR:
>
> disables the insertion of author (assuming that TITLE is not empty -
> see below.)
>
>
>> >       - with-date (wdate)
>
> An empty
>
> #+DATE:
>
> disables the insertion of date (same assumption.)
>
>> >       - with-maketitle (wmtitle)
>
> An empty
>
> #+TITLE:
>
> disables the insertion of \maketitle.
>
> So if TITLE is not empty, you can get what you want with existing
> machinery. I could not find a way to make the title empty  and still
> have author and/or date fields.
>
> Given all this, I think the only things you need is title-position and
> with-title, the latter in the unlikely event that you want a title page
> with author or date but without a title. Personally, I'd consider this
> last one unimportant and not worry about it, but you may disagree.
>
>> >     
>> > * org-latex.el:
>> >     - implemented handling of new options (see above):
>> >       - title-position controls placement of \title, \author, \date;
>> >         possible values are "b" = before \begin{document},
>> >         any other values default to after \begin{document}
>> >       - with-* controls if the corresponding macro is exported at all
>> >         this can be convenient for more complex titles (e.g. several
>> >         authors including affiliations,...)
>> >
>> > The patch seems to work for me so far. What do you all think? IMO it
>> > would be useful to integrate this, as it gives slightly more control
>> > over the export process. Of course one might want to think about
>> > better option names. The diff is done against commit
>> > bc161ded3693f752616dcd247fc9d638789025ee.
>> >
>> > Let me briefly describe my current use case:
>> > I disable all commands except \title, use babel to created a title.tex
>> > file (including several authors and affiliations) by tangling latex
>> > code and then include the file (into the main body of the document,
>> > not the preamble). That's the only decent way I've found to do this,
>> > if anyone knows an easier way (I have the feeling that I might be
>> > overlooking an obvious solution) please let me know!
>> >
>
> I'm not sure what problem you are trying to solve here: can you explain?
> It seems to me that all this can be done in standard ways.
>
>> > Cheers
>> > Sebastian
>> >
>> >
>> Aloha Sebastian,
>> 
>> Your patch should prove useful in the situation where one has to use a
>> particular class file that requires \title and friends to be declared in
>> the body of the document rather than the preamble.  That functionality
>> is a welcome addition to the LaTeX exporter, IMO.
>> 
>
> IIUC, the only remaining thing is the position of the \title etc macros
> in the preamble or the body (or both).
>
> There are three categories of LaTeX classes: the ones that implement
> Lamport's dictum that \title etc can come anywhere before \maketitle,
> the ones like RevTeX that insist on having them in the body and the ones
> like the thesis document class at Suvayu's university, that insist on
> having them in the preamble. I consider both of the latter two as buggy:
> has anybody submitted a bug report on them?
>
> Has anybody researched the prevalence of these bugs? Are there lots of
> classes in one or the other of the buggy categories?
>
> Be that as it may, it seems that org needs a patch to work around these
> bugs.  Personally, since it is a class problem, I'd rather have this
> kind of information in the class template.  You set it once for each
> class that needs it and you forget about it. Assuming the maintainers
> agree, any chance of reworking the patch along these lines? Maybe make
> it extensible as well: a property list that can accumulate all the junk
> in one place perhaps. That way the RevTeX class can be configured
> appropriately and the rest of the world can live in blissful ignorance
> of the problem. You might detect a bias here: I prefer these things in
> the preamble by default.
>
>> Another way to achieve your current use case, IIUC, which might or might
>> not seem easier, is to redefine \maketitle along the lines suggested by
>> Nick Dokos (see
>> http://orgmode.org/worg/org-tutorials/org-latex-export.html#sec-11_2).
>> 
>
> As I mentioned, I'm not really sure what Sebastian is looking for, so I
> can't really say whether the above would help, but if it can be done
> this way, I think it would be preferable to introducing new user options
> for the exlusive use of the org latex exporter. There are legitimate uses
> for user options but working around bugs in downstream packages is
> not one of them. IMO, of course.
>
> Nick
>

Aloha Nick,

Your analysis and explanation makes it clear to me that the class
template is the best place for title-position.  I hope it proves
possible to put it there.

All the best,
Tom

-- 
Thomas S. Dye
http://www.tsdye.com