Re: [O] LaTex export: How to use `csquotes' and `\enquote{}'

[Nick Dokos]

Responses to Frederik and Tom inline.

Frederik <address@hidden> writes:

> Why not use one option for babel and another for csquotes? I thought
> of something like this:
>
> #+OPTIONS: babel:english,ngerman csquotes:autostyle,german=guillemets
>

I did suggest different options, one controlling babel and the other
controlling csquotes. The problem with the above is that it is very
LaTeX-specific: the options and their values have no meaning outside of
that. I think that we should strive to use more generic options that
would at least be usable by other export engines.

> Or is there any other reason why one would like to specify language options?
>
> Sadly I don't have the skills to suggest a patch...
>
> I definitely see Nick's point: simplicity is one of the most important
> features of org-mode. So a possible decision not to support csquotes
> is absolutely understandable.

I'll be very surprised if there is no support for csquotes within a couple
of weeks (maybe within a couple of days :-) ) The question is "what form
will it take?"


Thomas S. Dye <address@hidden> wrote:

> I'm wondering if a simpler solution than Nick's might be to replace the
> lists at the end of this code snippet with a variable, say
> org-export-latex-quote-mechanism.  Initially, the variable would be set
> to the second list.  If the user wanted something different, then the
> user would be responsible for setting the variable to the different
> quoting mechanism, whether it be \enquote{ or something else.  The user
> would also be responsible for making sure the LaTeX packages needed to
> support the quoting mechanism were loaded and functional.
> 
> (defun org-export-latex-quotation-marks ()
>   "Export quotation marks depending on language conventions."
>   (let* ((lang (plist-get org-export-latex-options-plist :language))
>        (quote-rpl (if (equal lang "fr")
>                       '(("\\(\\s-\\)\"" "«~")
>                         ("\\(\\S-\\)\"" "~»")
>                         ("\\(\\s-\\)'" "`"))
>                     '(("\\(\\s-\\|[[(]\\)\"" "``")
>                       ("\\(\\S-\\)\"" "''")
>                       ("\\(\\s-\\|(\\)'" "`")))))
> 
> This might provide Org-mode the flexibility needed to support csquotes,
> but also leave open the possibility of supporting other packages, as
> well.
> 

Maybe - this is the kind of mechanism that is used for
org-export-latex-classes for example, so there is definitely
precedent. OTOH, the lists above look like hen scratchings (or line
noise if you prefer, or -- I'll get in trouble for this -- Perl
code :-)), so it would be easy to get things wrong if you have to
cut-and-paste-and-edit which I think one would have to do to customize
it: it's OK to expect *one* developer to get it right, but it's not
OK to expect 100 users to get it right.

So it might be simpler to implement, but I'm not sure it might be
simpler to use. I've supported using existing mechanisms to implement
new behavior before and not disturbing the existing structure too much
(e.g. the revtex stuff that Sebastian Hoffert was (is?) working on).
But if it leads to e.g. an implementation that befuddles users, then
you end up with a flood of questions on the ML. So it's a balancing
act.

BTW, you mention the possibility of supporting other packages. I didn't
find anything useful in the TeX FAQ but if there are "csquotes-like"
packages that people commonly (or perhaps uncommonly) use then a survey
of their capabilities might indicate the best way to go.

Nick