Alan Schmitt <alan.schm...@polytechnique.org> writes: Michael Strey <mst...@strey.biz> writes:> Rasmus,
>> In fact to use the scrlttr2 support in Org I had to adjust a LCO files >> because it's currently loaded after LATEX_HEADER arguments (so all >> customization was overwritten). I didn't like that. > > After this remark I checked my changes and compared them with the > default code and behaviour of ox-koma-letter with the result that I > reverted all of my deletions. The mentioned feature provides just the right > hierarchy for my use case. > > - LCO overrides everything > - options in the file override options in customization > - options in customization override defaults in ox-koma-letter > > Nevertheless I agree that the "nil check" solution would allow more > flexibility. Cool, I'll look at it when time permits (which will not be next week). >> > Maybe we should write a user guide *before* further implementation >> > steps. >> >> I agree. A "question zero" is whether we eventually want to have an >> org-letter which could, in principle, output to something different >> than scrlttr2. > > IMO one *good* solution for writing letters is enough. scrlttr2 is > perfect for me and covers at least European conventions about how > letters should look like. I don't know which LaTeX classes people from > other parts of the globe prefer. > > At least we should try to make the user interface (the list of > variables) universal enough to cover other classes as well. I agree on semi-universal arguments and retaining the current specialization to scrlttr2. -- If you can mix business and politics wonderful things can happen!
