Re: [O] [New exporter] Wrong export to LaTeX

[Sebastien Vauban]

Hi Nicolas,

Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> "Sebastien Vauban" writes:
>> Suvayu Ali wrote:
>>>> However, I thought that LaTeX_CLASS had been renamed EXPORT_LaTeX_CLASS,
>>>> but when using the latter, I get frames inside an `article' documentclass
>>>> type of document -- while using `C-c E l O' (for Beamer)? That results in
>>>> a weird document...
>>>
>>> I believe that is the property name only for subtree export. So when
>>> exporting a file, use:
>>>
>>>   #+LaTeX_CLASS: beamer
>>>
>>> for subtree export use:
>>>
>>>   * Beamer presentation
>>>     :PROPERTIES:
>>>     :EXPORT_LaTeX_CLASS: beamer
>>>     :END:
>>
>> Nicolas, do you confirm the fact that keywords differ whether they apply to
>> the file or to a subtree?
>
> Yes.
>
>> If yes, wouldn't make sense to remove such a distinction, or (at the other
>> extreme of the spectrum) to make all keywords share that same feature
>> (prefixing with "EXPORT_" for subtrees)?
>
> Note that it isn't a new feature from the new export engine, merely a
> generalization from the old exporter, which already distinguished #+DATE:
> and :EXPORT_DATE:, #+TITLE: and :EXPORT_TITLE:...
>
> There's little incentive for users to create new keywords on the fly. On the
> other hand, they may want to add node properties. That's why export keywords
> should be made as simple as possible and export properties should pollute as
> little namespace as possible.
>
> Therefore, I think the current state is good. It will be properly documented
> once the new exporter becomes mainstream (but the rule is simple anyway).

I'm glad that such a rule exists:

    #+KEYWORD: for *file* export properties

        |
        v

    #+EXPORT_KEYWORD: for *subtree* export properties

#+LaTeX_CLASS follows a rule which escaped me.

Your explanation does make a lot of sense. No change!

Best regards,
Seb

-- 
Sebastien Vauban