Am Wed, 21 May 2014 14:47:37 +0200 schrieb Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaz...@gmail.com>:
> Hello, > > Christian Kellermann <ck...@pestilenz.org> writes: > > > I first thought about using ODT_STYLES_FILE in the list form and > > pick out the content.xml from there, but maybe that's a bit > > unexpected as one might use a different content than from the style. > > > > But the control flow as it is now would need to be refactored to > > make this a nice patch too. > > > > I shall resend this patch with proper docstrings and manual patches > > if you like. > > Please do. > > >> I think this is a more general issue: should we implement an > >> > >> #+OPTIONS: title:nil > >> > >> feature? I think it makes some sense since we already have > >> date:nil and author:nil. In any case, keywords are not meant to be > >> used for booleans. This should be an OPTIONS item. > > > > I don't feel qualified to decide on this. I can provide the needed > > patches though. > > Introducing the item is easy, but making something out of it in each > back-end is not, as it requires to define what title:nil means there. > In particular, should it be "an empty title" or something else? > > For example, ascii back-end provides a banner as its title. Should > title:nil remove the title from the banner or should it remove the > banner altogether, thus overriding date:t and author:t items. > > Likewise, should title:nil insert "\title{}" in a LaTeX document > header, remove the "\maketitle{}" line, or perhaps, both? To be consistent over backends I think it should be implemented as an empty title string. If date:t or/and author:t are specified these should show up somewhere. \maketitle{} should be removed only, if a titlepage would appear empty in the exported document. Just the usual 2c worth of opinion. Detlef > > It seems that you answered to that question regarding ODT back-end > though. > > WDYT? > > > Regards, >