Hi, First: Please don't take me being critical as meaning I'm necessarily negative about. I'm just minimizing risk over the expectation.
Marcin Borkowski <mb...@wmi.amu.edu.pl> writes: >> - What happens when you cannot maintain it any longer? Note also that the > > Either the project dies, or someone takes it over. The latter seems to > be quite common in the LaTeX community, so I wouldn't be very worried. That does not seem like something you'd want to base Org on... >> scope is somewhat different as a typical latex package solves a problem >> like "provide good tables" or "enhance itemize 2e" (ei2e). Such >> packages are fairly easy to replace (e.g. sugfigure → subcaption). > > Fair enough. Not a problem imho, though. A “package” has a very wide > definition in the LaTeX world, and I explained why a package would be > better than a class (even though doing it as a package would be a bit > more work with ensuring that it works with wide range of classes). I am talking about latex packages and the example mentions real latex packages. A class would be a sure route to failure. A packages is fine. But it's beside the point. You argue, if I understand correctly, for amending ox-latex to rely on a very specialized package, which we may or may not easily be able to replace should it come to that. >> - I don't want latex code generated by org to a "special flavor" like with >> LyX. > In my vision, the huge preamble is replaced by \usepackage{orglatex} or > something like this, and instead of, say, OK. > : \section{{\bfseries\sffamily TODO} hello\hfill{}\textsc{world}} > > (how is that not a “special flavor”?) you would have > > : \section{\orgtodo{TODO}hello\orgtags{world}} > > or, if we decide to do a major surgery on LaTeX’s sectioning mechanism > (which is debatable), even > > : \section[orgtodo=TODO,orgtags=world]{hello} Both are appealing. >> - Why can the issues you have in mind not be solved by a specialized >> derived backend? Such as ox-beamer or ox-koma-letter. > > This seems to bug you enough that you basically asked twice;-). No. Here is ask why you can't settle for another Org-mode backend, rather than a new latex package. This can even live in contrib without signing the copyright agreement with FSF. E.g. you could get a very similar result to what you are talking about by defining the macros at export-level (e.g. write-out \providecommand\orgtodo...) and allowed writing a preamble or similar (if you really mind long preambles). That way anybody would also be able to customize on the latex end, if they so desire. > As I said, people use Org-mode in various ways. [...]. For other > people, [they make] a draft in Org they continue their work in LaTeX > (...). For them, human-readable (and editable) LaTeX code is a nice > thing. Good point. > Also, adding some options in a LaTeX package seems to have less friction > than in Org. In the former, you just code it and make a pull request to > the package maintainer (or send a patch, or even just file a feature > request). In the latter, you bug Nicolas, and he has to think about the > impact of your feature request for other backends (because Org is not > LaTeX-centric!). I don't see the difference. —Rasmus -- You people at the NSA are becoming my new best friends!