On 19 sep. 2012, at 15:15, Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello, > > t...@tsdye.com (Thomas S. Dye) writes: > >> I'm not sure about support for \hfill{}, etc. The new latex and html >> exporters pass \hfill{} through unchanged, which might be what the latex >> author wants, or what the html author writing about latex commands >> wants. > > It would not change anything for the HTML author, since \hfill{} would > be exported as-is in any exporter. Though, it would be a less convenient > for the LaTeX author, who would have to type @@latex:\hfill{}@@. > > On the other hand, I see at lest 3 reasons to remove support for such > constructs: > > - consistency :: it's not possible to write raw HTML in an Org buffer, > nor raw Texinfo. LaTeX shouldn't be treated > differently. > > - clarity :: Recently, an user expected the \cite{} command to work in > a backend different from LaTeX. > > - ecumenism :: Removing LaTeXisms will make Org documents easier to > export to various back-ends. These are all valid arguments. However, I did design Org-mode to be LaTeX-near to make sure that it becomes easy and fast to type as a notes environment. In my mind, a user expecting \cite{...} to work in other backends is not necessarily a wrong expectation, and if we introduce a syntax for doing citations in HTML, why not using the LaTeX syntax for it? So actually, it seems I do not fully agree with your *consistency* argument. While you are right that it is the logical and clean thing if you view Org as a markup language created for export, it is not necessarily the right solution for a convenience point of view. Just my 5c, of course... - Carsten