Viktor Rosenfeld <[email protected]> writes:
>> Ah, you mean the textsc? Perhaps it is a bit eccentric. But you're
>> bringing up a good point. It should recognize [p]+s and perhaps even
>> order them. . .
>
> If there is no PS prefix set, users could simply write these out
> themselves. I don't think it is much of a burden. Recognizing multiple
> :P[+]S: tags in code seems like overkill to me. The all go into the same
> \ps, don't they?
No, you'd want have
\ps{ps:one}
\ps{pps:two}
\ps{pps:three}.
Either they could be different subtrees
* ps :ps:
** ps-one
ps:one
** ps-two
ps:two
[...]
or they could just be ordered the way they were in the buffer.
Probably that's easier.
> The latter example does not really work for me because I often write
> letters below a TODO headline (as opposed to a dedicated file). So I
> restrict export to a subtree which would not work if I'm below the
> letter headline. In my case I would use something like this:
>
> #+BEGIN_EXAMPLE
> * TODO write letter
> :PROPERTIES:
> :EXPORT_OPENING: ...
> ...
> :END:
>
> The letter goes here.
>
> ** TO :TO:
> ...
> #+END_EXAMPLE
> I have a capture template setup for letters, so I don't normally have to
> add the address information manually. I would probably stick to the old
> format and use headlines if I have a PS and so on.
Cool, you should write an article about!
--
Don't panic!!!
