Hi, Rasmus wrote:
> Viktor Rosenfeld <listuse...@gmail.com> writes: > > >> Ah, you mean the textsc? Perhaps it is a bit eccentric. But you're > >> bringing up a good point. It should recognize [p]+s and perhaps even > >> order them. . . > > > > If there is no PS prefix set, users could simply write these out > > themselves. I don't think it is much of a burden. Recognizing multiple > > :P[+]S: tags in code seems like overkill to me. The all go into the same > > \ps, don't they? > > No, you'd want have > \ps{ps:one} > \ps{pps:two} > \ps{pps:three}. Okay, I didn't know this. But what's the advantage over \ps{ ps:one ps:two ps:three} > > The latter example does not really work for me because I often write > > letters below a TODO headline (as opposed to a dedicated file). So I > > restrict export to a subtree which would not work if I'm below the > > letter headline. In my case I would use something like this: > > > > #+BEGIN_EXAMPLE > > * TODO write letter > > :PROPERTIES: > > :EXPORT_OPENING: ... > > ... > > :END: > > > > The letter goes here. > > > > ** TO :TO: > > ... > > #+END_EXAMPLE > > I have a capture template setup for letters, so I don't normally have to > > add the address information manually. I would probably stick to the old > > format and use headlines if I have a PS and so on. > > Cool, you should write an article about! Do you mean the capture template? I might put it in the tutorial. I planned to have a tips and tricks section there anyway. Cheers, Viktor > > -- > Don't panic!!! >