Dnia 2013-05-02, o godz. 02:48:41 James Harkins <jamshar...@gmail.com> napisaĆ(a):
> John Hendy <jw.hendy <at> gmail.com> writes: > > > Just wondering about the rationale behind using *bold* markup for > > \textbf{} in LaTeX export and to \alert{} in Beamer. Was this a > > frequently voiced request? I'm sure I can dig into this somewhere > > and change it, but if the majority prefers bold (not saying they > > do!), should that be the default? > > > > I'd prefer bold, personally. I don't like red table column titles > > or in > lists. > > I had asked the same question a while back, and I received some quite > amusing replies about \alert being "the Beamer way"... which I > promptly ignored and implemented my own hack to customize the LaTeX > command for beamer to use for *bold text* (pasted as a git patch > below). So maybe consider \alert{...} being "the Beamer way" just like <strong> being the HTML/CSS way. > I'm reading Marcin's recommendations carefully, since now, for the > first time, I need to learn more about tweaking LaTeX's output. I'm > not sure I agree with all of that line of thought, though. > > ~~ > * Keeping that in mind, \alert{...} is /better/ than \textbf{...}, > just like \emph{...} is better than \textit{...}: it is semantic, not > visual markup. > ~~ > > I can understand this rationale if the use case is to export from org > to a LaTeX file, and then continue to work with the LaTeX file. In > that case, you would want the exported LaTeX code to follow best > practices and be "maintainable." I'd guess a more common use case for > org export is to work exclusively with the org markup, and allow the > exporter to use LaTeX as an intermediary, on the way to PDF. At least, > this is how *I* use it; it doesn't really bother me if the LaTeX code > produced by org uses semantic or visual markup. Where I need semantic > markup (and I will, in my next article), I'll write the semantic > markup in org. Fair point. For me, Org-mode is more of a planner/outliner; using it for markup/authoring seems awkward for me, since LaTeX is so natural... But then, I've been using LaTeX for something like 12 years (and plain TeX earlier). (One exception - for me - is authoring of blog entries, and one day I'll play with an Oddmuse export...) And I imagine that for quite a few people, maintainability of the LaTeX code resulting from Org-mode export might be essential. And by "maintainability", I mean one of two things: (1) possibility of further work on the file by a human or (2) possibility of changing the look-and-feel by just loading a package or a simple customization in the preamble. For both cases, sticking as much as possible to semantic markup in the exported code is crucial. > I guess I look at this in a way that FAUST [1] uses c++ as an > intermediary. You write the signal-processing graph in FAUST's own > purely-functional language, which the FAUST compiler translates into > c++ (with a variety of headers and wrappers for VST, OSX audio units, > SuperCollider plug-ins etc.). The resulting c++ is a mess, from the > standpoint of reading and maintenance, but you're not supposed to > maintain that code by hand. You're supposed to go back to the FAUST > code to make changes. > > org --> LaTeX -- PDF > FAUST --> c++ --> DSP plugin > > But, going a step further, if semantic markup is what you need, > wouldn't it be better to define a \newcommand wrapper for \textbf, and > then tell org to export *bold* using the wrapper? That would assume > that you can customize the string org uses for *bold*, which you can't > at present... so maybe my hack has some use after all. Fair point again. I think that the point is that - unlike HTML - you have \emph{...} in LaTeX, but no \strong{...} (or \alert{...} - for that you need beamer; strangley enough, in the beamerarticle class, \alert{...} is mapped to \emph{...}). Now I guess I know the reason, though it is only my suspicion and not knowledge. You know, LaTeX is being advertised as being a "document preparation system". But in fact it's not; it is a "scientific paper preparation system", and more precisely a "computer science paper preparation system". Everything else are add-ons (packages and classes in LaTeX-speak). Even for maths publishing, pure LaTeX core is not enough: you need at least amsmath/amssymb/amsfonts. So, with the focus being on /printed/ documents in a scientific field, boldface in text is a no-no; basically, the /only/ reasonable use for boldface (apart from some vector notation, but I'm speaking about text, not formulae here) is in titles etc., where we don't use \textbf{...} (or {\bfseries ...}) anyway, since they are already packaged in higher-level, semantic macros like \section{...} or \title{...}/\maketitle etc. Now with documents other than papers on computer science actually printed on physical paper, things are different. But LaTeX (and again - I mean core LaTeX2e, without additional packages etc.) simply does not address that. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if LaTeX3 gets \strong{...} or \alert{...} in the core some day. > hjh Best, -- Marcin Borkowski http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski Adam Mickiewicz University