Re: [O] [ox, patch] Add #+SUBTITLE

[Rasmus]

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 <address@hidden> 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!