[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [O] Confusion about attr_latex and new exporter

From: John Hendy
Subject: Re: [O] Confusion about attr_latex and new exporter
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 09:49:17 -0500

On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 12:07 AM, Aaron Ecay <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi again,
> 2013ko martxoak 19an, Aaron Ecay-ek idatzi zuen:
>> I’m sorry, that was a mistake.  I sent a patch to the HTML backend to
>> enable this behavior, but forgot all about it.  Then when I checked the
>> code, it looked like the functionality was already there!  I’ll follow
>> up with Bastien about the patch, and see what its status is...
> I was very confused when I wrote this.  The patches I had in mind were
> for a different issue.  If
> #+ATTR_HTML: :width 200
> ever worked for me, it was only because of me hacking org into a
> chimeric state.  I guess you should continue to use
> #+ATTR_HTML: width=200
> or whatever the working incantation for HTML has traditionally been.

Thanks for the clarification, though regardless of the current
state... what is the consensus on what it *should* be? The old lingo
- #+attr_latex: width=Xcm
- #+attr_html: width="Xpx"

That made sense to me since that's how they appear in
\blah[width=Xcm]{file.png} or <img src="" width="Xpx" />.

With the move to :width value, I guess I'd rather see them work the
same or have it be obviously backend-specific vs. having :width Xcm
for LaTeX, and width=200 for html. At least make it identical to the
actual backend syntax (quotes around the 200 for html) or in pure
babel-esque language to unify (:width value, no quotes) for all.

At least that's my thought from a user's perspective.


> Sorry for the noise,
> --
> Aaron Ecay

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]