Jambunathan K <kjambunat...@gmail.com> writes: [...]
> I think one of the reasons Org is so popular it is that it is a > common-man's swiss army knife and not a elitist samurai sword. And I think this is a very important analogy. Org does a good job for many (very different) tasks. The price is that it does not necessarily do some of those tasks as well as could be. I am happy to put with the rough edges exposed by the exporters because of what the whole package provides. Case in point: I submitted a paper yesterday which I wrote in org. However, for the submission, once I was happy with all the content, I had to tweak the latex to meet the journal's format because they provide a style file which requires title, author, etc. to come *after* the \begin{document}. I could have fooled org into doing the "right thing" but it was simply easier to worry about this at the end and not get hung up with the minor exporting issues involved. By using org for writing (days, weeks) and latex (5-10 minutes) for the final tweaking, my productivity was probably as high as it will ever get for this type of task. This is *not* an argument against an improved export engine in org, simply a comment on perspective and relative importance! -- : Eric S Fraga (GnuPG: 0xC89193D8FFFCF67D) in Emacs 24.0.50.1 : using Org-mode version 7.5 (release_7.5.126.g0e3a8)