This seems like a very common thing to want to do, but am I right in
thinking that it's also very hard to get right because the frame
environment is not really a sectioning environment?
As I understand things, the way we export to latex is to insert
sectioning commands, and drop translated content in between.
However, this doesn't seem like the right model for Beamer.
Consider a crude talk outline like this:
* Here's a simple point
Some material here
* Here's a complex point
** First component point
Explanation
** Second component point
More explanation....
The "right" way to translate this is something like
\section{Here's a simple point}
\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Here's a simple point}
...
\end{frame}
\section{Here's a complex point}
\begin{frame}
\frametitle{First component point}
....
\end{frame}
\begin{frame}
\frametitle{Second component point}
....
\end{frame}
------------------------------------------
I.e., there's some rule like "If a header has text under it, then treat
it as a frame, otherwise, just treat it as a section header."
You see this above, where the two top-level headers are treated differently.
I can't think of any obvious way to translate org to beamer that doesn't
require choosing a /specific/ level of the outline as "the level that
corresponds to a frame," and doing that seems to seriously compromise
the outlining flexibility of org-mode.
Am I missing something here? Is there some better way to figure out how
to introduce frames, instead of treating them as sectioning headers?
thanks,
R
_______________________________________________
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
