[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [O] [PATCH] Improve usage of odt content templates

From: Detlef Steuer
Subject: Re: [O] [PATCH] Improve usage of odt content templates
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 10:00:53 +0200

Am Wed, 21 May 2014 14:47:37 +0200
schrieb Nicolas Goaziou <address@hidden>:

> Hello,
> Christian Kellermann <address@hidden> writes:
> > I first thought about using ODT_STYLES_FILE in the list form and
> > pick out the content.xml from there, but maybe that's a bit
> > unexpected as one might use a different content than from the style.
> >
> > But the control flow as it is now would need to be refactored to
> > make this a nice patch too.
> >
> > I shall resend this patch with proper docstrings and manual patches
> > if you like.
> Please do.
> >> I think this is a more general issue: should we implement an
> >> 
> >>   #+OPTIONS: title:nil
> >> 
> >> feature? I think it makes some sense since we already have
> >> date:nil and author:nil. In any case, keywords are not meant to be
> >> used for booleans. This should be an OPTIONS item.
> >
> > I don't feel qualified to decide on this. I can provide the needed
> > patches though.
> Introducing the item is easy, but making something out of it in each
> back-end is not, as it requires to define what title:nil means there.
> In particular, should it be "an empty title" or something else?
> For example, ascii back-end provides a banner as its title. Should
> title:nil remove the title from the banner or should it remove the
> banner altogether, thus overriding date:t and author:t items.
> Likewise, should title:nil insert "\title{}" in a LaTeX document
> header, remove the "\maketitle{}" line, or perhaps, both?

To be consistent over backends I think it should be implemented as
an empty title string. If date:t or/and author:t are specified these
should show up somewhere.

\maketitle{} should be removed only, if a titlepage would appear empty 
in the exported document.

Just the usual 2c worth of opinion.


> It seems that you answered to that question regarding ODT back-end
> though.
> Regards,

reply via email to

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