Hello, Marcin Borkowski <mb...@wmi.amu.edu.pl> writes:
> Daniele Pizzolli <d...@toel.it> napisaĆ(a): >> Or why not drop \textit? > > Sounds good for me. (NB: there's a similar problems with tags, AFAIR. > And (AFAIR!) it's even worse, since the exporter uses a low-level TeX > command \hfill.) Well, there is `org-latex-active-timestamp-format', `org-latex-inactive-timestamp-format' and even filters can do it. It is also technically possible to write in ox-latex a section-local specific export back-end that would translate differently some objects in a \section{...} command. But that would make the export a bit more unpredictable. Of course, in a few cases, `latex' back-end does its best to circumvent possible problems (i.e. nested footnotes), but this is nowhere near a general rule. It's usually a lot of work for a tiny corner case. >> > In general, putting formatting commands in \section title etc., >> > even if not erroneous, is considered a bad practice. >> >> But org-mode allow this! >> >> I think that if something is allowed in org-mode syntax but not by the >> underlining tools used for export, the exporter should take care to >> find a suitable workaround. > > Definitely agreed. The point is, what is a "suitable workaround"? I disagree. This is just unrealistic. There are many packages involving many quirks. We cannot afford to provide a workaround to all (or even most) of them, assuming one exists. Also, the OP is making a false assumption. The underlining tool allows \texit in the section \command, i.e., you can type it in a "tex" file. You will get a compilation error, exactly as if you do the same mistake in Org. Why Org should be smarter in this case? Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou