Re: [Patch] [Objective]Caml dialect in listings
Basile Pesin writes: > There is a small patch I would like to submit : when writing listings > for the OCaml programming language, one should use the "[Objective]Caml" > dialect, which is different from the "Caml" dialect. This is not > reflected in the latex exported code. Makes sense. > The attached patch changes this. Thank you in advance for your patience, > this is my first patch so I hope I did everything correctly. Thanks, looks very good. Applied (0abd4a44c) with two minor commit message tweaks. > Subject: [PATCH] ox-latex.el : Use [Objective]Caml dialect I dropped the space between "el" and ":" ... > * ox-latex.el (org-latex-listings-langs): Change the binding for > `ocaml' to "[Objective]Caml" > > The "[Objective]Caml" dialect syntax highlighting is different from the > "Caml" one (reflecting the added features of OCaml compared to > Caml-light). > TINYCHANGE ... and added a new line before TINYCHANGE.
Re: [PATCH] Use lexical-binding cookie in some trivial files
Stefan Kangas writes: > I'm trying to reduce the number of files in the Emacs source tree where > lexical-binding is nil. It would be nice if we could fix org-version.el > and org-install.el, like in the attached patch. Applied (a50a42cea). Thanks.
Re: [PATCH] ox-latex.el: fix interpretation of org-latex-pdf-process
Tara Lorenz writes:
> Hi all,
>
> it seems that the documentation and code for `org-latex-pdf-process' are
> out of sync: Where the documentation mentions "%bib" the code expects
> "%bibtex". At least, that's how i understand it.
Thanks for catching that. It seems [1] it's an old regression from
f6187deca (ox-latex: Small refactor, 2015-09-13).
[1] https://orgmode.org/list/877e8p1aej@kyleam.com/
> I resolved that confusing situation by making "%bib" and "%bibtex"
> equally accepted, without touching the documentation. Thus, old
> configurations work again ("%bib") as well as workarounds (using
> "%bibtex") which might have gotten employed somewhere.
That sounds like a good approach to me. Applied (13e98e2a1), adding a
TINYCHANGE cookie and a reference to the above commit in the message.
> Subject: [PATCH] ox-latex.el: fix interpretation of org-latex-pdf-process
[...]
>(process (if (functionp org-latex-pdf-process) org-latex-pdf-process
> - ;; Replace "%latex" and "%bibtex" with,
> + ;; Replace "%latex", "%bib" and "%bibtex" with,
> ;; respectively, "%L" and "%B" so as to adhere to
> ;; `format-spec' specifications.
I also tweaked this comment a bit because, with the above change, the
elements before and after "respectively" no longer lined up.
Re: [PATCH] org-macs: Allow specifying relative time in hours
Daniel Gröber writes:
> This adds support for date expressions such as +12h to
> org-matcher-time. The regexp this function uses to parse such relative
> expressions already includes the "h" character but doesn't actually
> handle that case.
>
> AFAICT org-mode commit ec921a2a68 ("Support hourly repeat cookies")
> neglected to add support here.
Thanks for the analysis and patch. This looks good to me. Applied
(aeb9f036f), adding a changelog message to the patch and a TINYCHANGE
cookie (see ).
I've also followed up your commit with a commit that adds a few tests
for org-matcher-time, including for h.
Re: [Tip] Export a bibliography to HTML with bibLaTeX and make4ht
Hi Juan, On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 at 16:20, Juan Manuel Macías wrote: I agree with what you comment here and in your previous message. In fact, I'm afraid this (humble) approach of mine is focused only on creating a mere list of references in HTML from a bib file, keeping the same bibliography styles that I have customized in bibLaTeX, but not on everything related to citations throughout the text and on the consistency between citations and bibliographies. I would say that my method is not a good starting point to implement a solution. [...] In my case, anyway, I had been using the TeX ecosystem almost exclusively for my work in typesetting and editorial design (I do not use DTP software, which is not intended to create books but magazines and newspapers), and Org Mode for writing and notes. But in recent years I have come to realize that a workflow based also on Org and Org-Publish is tremendously productive for me to manage the typesetting of a book, especially a complex book. Let's say now I also use Org as a high-level interface for LaTeX. I'm currently working on the /Hispanic Dictionary of Classical Tradition/ (/Diccionario Hispánico de la Tradición Clásica/), a volume of multiple authorship and about 1200 pages. The method I raised in this thread has to do with this scenario, where each dictionary entry is accompanied by a bibliography. As the dictionary will have an online secondary version, I wanted to keep the same bibliography style that I had defined for bibLaTeX. I have not had the problem of the citations here, since the entries do not contain citations (bibliographies only). Otherwise, I think an emergency solution could be to export from Org to *.tex, and then generate the HTML from there using make4ht and another preamble /ad hoc/, better than using a mixed csl/bibLaTeX method which, as you say, can result in many inconsistencies. Well, I think your approach should work quite well for your use case, and certainly a number of others. It is just a matter of being aware of the limitations of the tool. That given, it is great. Of course, I was also curious how you had figured things from a more general perspective. The essential problem, of course, is that our customization is LaTeXcentric: it resides in LaTeX/bibLaTeX and not in Org. [...] I think it is more than just being "LaTeXcentric". Depending on requirements, there is really no choice. We don't hear this often, but the fact is that Org does not support citation and bibliography by itself. A lot of things "work", and in many requirements scenarios that seems to be enough, but what does work relies on outsourcing that task to other tools. As far as I know, there are only two ways out of an Org document with citation and bibliography: LaTeX (and its related tools: bibtex, biblatex, biber, etc), and pandoc (which uses CSL to process these features). The first option is extremely featureful, but restricts us to .pdf output. The only sufficiently general option with multi output is then pandoc, which in turn bypasses the whole Org export infrastructure, implying its own trade-offs because of that. Besides, there is no real link between the LaTeX infrastructure and pandoc/CSL, so that if you want to reach "best results in LaTeX, and acceptable results in other formats", you are bound to live with differences in output for citation/references across formats and to remain under the restrictions of the least featureful backend. Long ago I tended to be more in favor of the idea that a single source-text should produce multiple identical or interchangeable formats. I really still believe it with enthusiasm and I have not completely lost faith in such a utopia ;-) I'd also would love to see that. ;-) And I do think Org is, by far, the best placed tool to fill this place. But I also think citations and bibliography are a big bottleneck in that regard. Of course, there is a long ongoing effort in that area, in the `wip-cite' branch, and the related `org-citeproc' package. I'm still in the hope this will get merged in future not too distant, as it would change things in that regard. Not in the sense of "magically solving all of these problems", but in providing a convened base upon which people can than invest their time and effort, and try to figure each case out, with time. Best regards, Gustavo.
Re: [Tip] Export a bibliography to HTML with bibLaTeX and make4ht
Hi Gustavo, Thank you for your interesting comments. Gustavo Barros writes: > On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 at 08:37, Gustavo Barros > wrote: > >> It should handle two limitations of your procedure, which >> are: getting the bibliography with the entries actually cited in the >> document and citation callouts. The first one is easy to handle in >> your >> current approach by means of any of the multiple alternatives to >> generate a bib file with only the cited entries. The second one, much >> harder, as far as I can see. > > Thinking this through: there is actually a third challenge to the > approach, which is ensuring the relation of the citation callouts and > the bibliography is correct. For example, if using a numeric or alpha > style, how to be sure the labels are the same in the citation and the > bibliography. Even in other styles, such as author-year, if > disambiguation rules come into play (e.g. (Smith 1987a, Smith 1987b)), > how to be sure the same rules are being applied by pandoc/CSL (on the > citations) and biblatex (in the bibliography). As far as I can tell, > this will hang on sorting, something which biblatex is known to be > more capable than other tools, so that I would expect differences (at > least potentially). Styles such as verbose or author-title would > probably be safe, I guess. Have you given some thought about this? > If so, how are you handling the case? > I agree with what you comment here and in your previous message. In fact, I'm afraid this (humble) approach of mine is focused only on creating a mere list of references in HTML from a bib file, keeping the same bibliography styles that I have customized in bibLaTeX, but not on everything related to citations throughout the text and on the consistency between citations and bibliographies. I would say that my method is not a good starting point to implement a solution. The essential problem, of course, is that our customization is LaTeXcentric: it resides in LaTeX/bibLaTeX and not in Org. In my case, anyway, I had been using the TeX ecosystem almost exclusively for my work in typesetting and editorial design (I do not use DTP software, which is not intended to create books but magazines and newspapers), and Org Mode for writing and notes. But in recent years I have come to realize that a workflow based also on Org and Org-Publish is tremendously productive for me to manage the typesetting of a book, especially a complex book. Let's say now I also use Org as a high-level interface for LaTeX. I'm currently working on the /Hispanic Dictionary of Classical Tradition/ (/Diccionario Hispánico de la Tradición Clásica/), a volume of multiple authorship and about 1200 pages. The method I raised in this thread has to do with this scenario, where each dictionary entry is accompanied by a bibliography. As the dictionary will have an online secondary version, I wanted to keep the same bibliography style that I had defined for bibLaTeX. I have not had the problem of the citations here, since the entries do not contain citations (bibliographies only). Otherwise, I think an emergency solution could be to export from Org to *.tex, and then generate the HTML from there using make4ht and another preamble /ad hoc/, better than using a mixed csl/bibLaTeX method which, as you say, can result in many inconsistencies. Long ago I tended to be more in favor of the idea that a single source-text should produce multiple identical or interchangeable formats. I really still believe it with enthusiasm and I have not completely lost faith in such a utopia ;-) But nuances are necessary and it must be accepted that each format has its idiosyncrasies and limitations. For example, TeX and what TeX produces is at a level (let's say) higher than what can be achieved through HTML/CSS, odt, epub... It is not only a question of typographic refinement or fancy appearance (typical of TeX), but also (in my opinion) of the book typography itself as a form of expression. The other formats will often lag behind TeX, and this must be taken into account when exporting, pros and cons, etc. On the other hand, bibLaTeX is powerful and highly customizable, but sadly depends on LaTeX... Regards, Juan Manuel > Best, > Gustavo. >
Re: [Tip] Export a bibliography to HTML with bibLaTeX and make4ht
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 at 08:37, Gustavo Barros wrote: It should handle two limitations of your procedure, which are: getting the bibliography with the entries actually cited in the document and citation callouts. The first one is easy to handle in your current approach by means of any of the multiple alternatives to generate a bib file with only the cited entries. The second one, much harder, as far as I can see. Thinking this through: there is actually a third challenge to the approach, which is ensuring the relation of the citation callouts and the bibliography is correct. For example, if using a numeric or alpha style, how to be sure the labels are the same in the citation and the bibliography. Even in other styles, such as author-year, if disambiguation rules come into play (e.g. (Smith 1987a, Smith 1987b)), how to be sure the same rules are being applied by pandoc/CSL (on the citations) and biblatex (in the bibliography). As far as I can tell, this will hang on sorting, something which biblatex is known to be more capable than other tools, so that I would expect differences (at least potentially). Styles such as verbose or author-title would probably be safe, I guess. Have you given some thought about this? If so, how are you handling the case? Best, Gustavo.
Re: [Tip] Export a bibliography to HTML with bibLaTeX and make4ht
Hi Juan, that's very interesting. Thanks for sharing. On Sat, 23 Jan 2021 at 12:03, Juan Manuel Macías wrote: > When I export to LaTeX an Org document that contains a bibliography, I > use bibLaTeX with a very custom style (i.e. quite a few lines of code > related to bibLaTeX in the preamble). I wanted to apply all that > bibLaTeX setting and styles when exporting to HTML too, so I came up > with this method, using make4ht. I share it here, in case it is useful > to someone. > > The idea is to compile with make4ht (see: > https://www.ctan.org/pkg/make4ht) a simple file with *only* the > bibliography, and "embed" the HTML output in the Org document. You need > to create in the working directory a tex file, which will serve as a > minimal preamble and which also includes all code related to bibLaTeX. > We can name it preamble.tex, and it would start like this: Indeed, when one actually needs biblatex-biber to process their bibliography, using Org is really hard. I have some history with this problem, as I initially approached Emacs (once upon a time) trying to use Org as a single source and multiple outputs (mainly pdf and odt). However, as you, I rely on heavily customized styles, which simply won't work with pandoc/CSL, so I got stuck. I eventually stayed in Emacs and use Org for a number of things, but for my more formal writing use AUCTeX + RefTeX, which is great too (alas, no odt..., at least not easily). For a long time I fancied trying something about it, pretty much in the same lines as you are doing here. My idea was to use `preview-latex' for this, which I still think is promising and, as far as I understand, pretty much automates what you are doing, which is to generate a stripped document, with a proper preamble, and run it on a piece of your actual document. It is used by AUCTeX and LyX (Org too, I presume) to generate images, but I don't see why it could not be streamlined to generate a dvi which could then be fed to tex4ht and friends, just as you do too. I thought that this procedure could, in principle, be used to export to other formats, but also to Org itself, generating either a second version of the source document with the citations and bibliography already processed as text (sort of a 'org-biblatex-citeproc'), or as a preview, such as the ones for math. Depending on how far you are willing to take your setup, this might be one path. It should handle two limitations of your procedure, which are: getting the bibliography with the entries actually cited in the document and citation callouts. The first one is easy to handle in your current approach by means of any of the multiple alternatives to generate a bib file with only the cited entries. The second one, much harder, as far as I can see. To my dismay, my own style customizations for biblatex are mainly aimed at citations (primary/archival sources for Economic History). But it was quite interesting to see your approach here. So, again, thank you. Best, Gustavo.
