Could make sense.
However, I would like to postpone this until I finish the code I'm working
on right now (give me a week).
And I would also like us all to think about the presence of
\usepackage{polyglossia/babel},
because keeping this makes the code really difficult to understand and
maintain.
I do understand this is a breaking change, but there are other breaking
changes around, so why not?
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 at 17:23, Ihor Radchenko <yanta...@posteo.net> wrote:
> Pedro Andres Aranda Gutierrez <paag...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > It would make then difficult to distinguish between people who want/need
> > polyglossia and people who don't, wouldn't it.
> > I'd rather not force anyone to load polyglossia if they don't want to use
> > it.
>
> Fair. However, I still feel that having to specify languages separately
> may be redundant. I imagine that babel and polyglossia may derive from
> the same keyword. Especially since we already have a mapping between
> Org's language names and babel/polyglossia names in
> `org-latex-language-alist'.
>
> Would it make sense to add something like
> #+LATEX_MULTILANG_BACKEND: polyglossia/babel/nil
> that will control which one to use?
>
> Then, ox-latex can examine #+LANGUAGE and use polyglossia/babel/none
> depending on the #+LATEX_MULTILANG_BACKEND and also presence of the
> \usepackage{polyglossia/babel} in the latex header.
>
> --
> Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
> Org mode maintainer,
> Learn more about Org mode at <https://orgmode.org/>.
> Support Org development at <https://liberapay.com/org-mode>,
> or support my work at <https://liberapay.com/yantar92>
>
--
Fragen sind nicht da, um beantwortet zu werden,
Fragen sind da um gestellt zu werden
Georg Kreisler
Sagen's Paradeiser, write BE!
Year 1 of the New Koprocracy
