Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:
> Rasmus <ras...@gmx.us> writes:
>
>> That's what I meant. Or rather a wrapper like org-latex--label. A
>> mapping like the one that was reverted for ox-latex only. Or are there
>> pitfalls in that approach?
>
> It will not give you predictability either since you cannot guess "4" in
> "sec:4".
That's fine.
> Also, it is dangerous since a user could use \label{sec:4} for something
> different.
So we could replace ^org with a mapping, e.g. "headline" → "sec:" and
"table" → "tab:". Then there's the added safety of TYPE-NUMBER and the
expected prefix.
> What is the real benefit of "sec:4" over "orgheadline4"? Aesthetics?
Mostly aesthetics. "sec:4" is expected, though I have no numbers to back
this claim.
I would expect breakage following the change to be pretty rare, but one
example of breakage is fancyref:
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{fancyref}
\begin{document}
\section{h1}
\label{sec:h1}
\section{h2}
\label{orgheading2}
See \fref{sec:h1} and \fref{orgheading2}
\end{document}
>> It does not IMO. I would rather not label sections manually.
>
> I don't understand that part. Would you mind elaborating a bit?
Given my taste for "standard" prefixes, I would rather not have to label
every section with some custom id to get a standard prefix in the output.
—Rasmus
--
I almost cut my hair, it happened just the other day
