Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes: > Hello, > > Rainer M Krug <rai...@krugs.de> writes: > >> If I have many headers in a document, it is easy to loose the overview >> for me. >> >> So I started to use drawers: >> >> :OPTIONS: >> ... >> :END: >> >> :LATEX: >> .... >> :END: >> >> :BABEL: >> ... >> :END: >> >> and have only the "standard" content type options open (DESCRIPTION, >> KEYWORDS, SUBTITLE, DATE, AUTHOR, ...) >> >> Would this be something to include into the templates which can be >> inserted (C-e C-L #)? This would make it much easier to work with these >> options. > > Do you suggest that `org-export-insert-default-template' should group > options within drawers by default?
Yes - that was my idea. > > If so, I'm not too keen of the idea of imposing drawers to the user. My reasoning is that it makes organizing options easier and that users get introduced into the idea of using dawers. > Besides, templates are already separated by back-end so you can insert > them within pre-created drawers already. True - it is not difficult, but might be more intuitive and lead to easier readable options. > > There is no "babel" or "options" category, though. I guess we could > create them, if needed. No - I don't think they are needed, as there are many different use cases for babel - but thinking about it, it might be an idea to insert the most widely used options for babel and set them at their default values - so documents become more robust and the options become introduced to the user. Cheers, Rainer > > Regards, -- Rainer M. Krug email: Rainer<at>krugs<dot>de PGP: 0x0F52F982
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
