Re: [O] export to odt with LaTeX math formulae and tables

[edgar]

> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 19 May 2018 19:24:12 +0200
> From: Joseph Vidal-Rosset <address@hidden>
> To: emacs-orgmode list <address@hidden>,  John Kitchin
>         <address@hidden>,         John Kitchin <address@hidden>
> Subject: Re: [O] export to odt with LaTeX math formulae and tables
> Message-ID:
>         <address@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hello John, hello the list,
>
> The results of my efforts to export an org file with equations, proofs 
> and
> so on to odt: imagemagick works, but the png images are ugly. 
> References of
> equations and bibliography do not work,

I have the same problem. So far, I can either get inter-text references 
or external packages (depending on whether I use the export from Org or 
Pandoc), but not both. I wonder if using an OTT would suffice to change 
the size of all equations in the ODT (cannot test now; away from my 
computer). If that is the case, there is an option to change the 
configuration of imagemagick and dvipng when exporting from Org to ODT. 
There, you can set the scale or resolution, I think. It makes the 
pictures to look bigger, but if the OTT forces them to be smaller again, 
I'm sure that they would look much better.

> because the png images do not
> reproduce the org-ref references.

I get the tags for the inter-text and bibliographic references coming 
from the LaTeX document (originally produced from Org --> LaTeX) when 
using Pandoc. I want to know: are you using Pandoc for this too?

Otherwise, I get nice inter-text references and can tweak the format if 
I take the Org export + LaTeXMLMath + OTT (template for ODT) --> ODT, 
but then I get no bibliograhpy. Is this the case for you too? If not, 
can you tell me how you solved this? (that is why I wanted to know if 
you are using Pandoc). Thanks!

> I am afraid that by using another way of
> exporting math. (Mathjax, Mathml...) I will not get the natural 
> deductions
> proofs that I get via proof.sty.

Yes, I think that has been my experience with other packages. You may 
want to get in touch with the people from LaTeXML to see if they can 
support proof.sty. In any case, there seems to be no immediate solution.

> (The export to odt or docx seems to be a
> real nightmare, and that is not very surprising, because LaTeX is the 
> only
> good solution...)

I agree on the nightmare! I made a bug (enhancement) report on 
LibreOffice to see if they can help with this. May be it would help if 
you add your "I want this too" :) . Also, consider that, when exporting 
to ODT, it's most likely because you are working with someone who does 
not care too much about the nice side of LaTeX. I would also advise you 
to consider loosing part of your format in your document. Instead of 
using \myformattingcommand{arg 1}{arg 2} which would produce a nice 
\frac{arg 1}{arg 2} in LaTeX, just replace your text for 1/2. They don't 
care!

> Best wishes,
>
> Jo.
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/attachments/20180519/e5191408/attachment.html>

This link leads nowhere.

Having said all of this, I would like to ask the Org team to consider 
the next two improvements for the ODT export:
1. Support the \printbibliography[heading=none] LaTeX command (I am away 
from my computer right now, and cannot tell if it works without 
[heading=none]).
2. Support Org --> MathML with LaTeX packages (as compared to exporting 
with ImageMagick, MathToWeb or LaTeXML).


Salut!

-------------------------------------------------

ONLY AT VFEmail! - Use our Metadata Mitigator to keep your email out of the 
NSA's hands!
$24.95 ONETIME Lifetime accounts with Privacy Features!  
15GB disk! No bandwidth quotas!
Commercial and Bulk Mail Options!