Skip Collins wrote:
> >> Then, what about setting :cbtrans to "\\texttt{[-]}" and
> >> `org-export-latex-list-parameters' to nil, instead of "$\\boxminus$" and
> >> '(:cbon "$\\boxtimes$" :cboff "$\\Box$"), respectively?
> >>
> >
> > I'm fine with that - Skip? Tom? Others? If this does end up bei
Nick Dokos writes:
> Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
>
>> Nick Dokos writes:
>>
>> >> Btw, is there any consensus on better default values for :cbon, :cboff
>> >> and :cbtrans? Configurability isn't an excuse for ugly standards.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I don't think so - not yet in any case. I didn't even kno
>> Then, what about setting :cbtrans to "\\texttt{[-]}" and
>> `org-export-latex-list-parameters' to nil, instead of "$\\boxminus$" and
>> '(:cbon "$\\boxtimes$" :cboff "$\\Box$"), respectively?
>>
>
> I'm fine with that - Skip? Tom? Others? If this does end up being the case,
> then Skip's \parbox
Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> Nick Dokos writes:
>
> >> Btw, is there any consensus on better default values for :cbon, :cboff
> >> and :cbtrans? Configurability isn't an excuse for ugly standards.
> >>
> >
> > I don't think so - not yet in any case. I didn't even know about the
> > box stuff until
Nick Dokos writes:
>> Btw, is there any consensus on better default values for :cbon, :cboff
>> and :cbtrans? Configurability isn't an excuse for ugly standards.
>>
>
> I don't think so - not yet in any case. I didn't even know about the
> box stuff until Skip brought it up. I would have thought
Hello,
Nick Dokos writes:
> Yes, you can indeed - except for the [-] which is hardcoded. Try the
> following:
>
> #LATEX_HEADER: \setbox0=\hbox{\large$\square$}
>
> #+BIND: org-export-latex-list-parameters (:cbon
> "[{\\parbox[][][c]{\\wd0}{\\large$\\boxtimes$}}]" :cboff
> "[{\\parbox[][][c]{\
Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Nick Dokos writes:
>
> > Yes, you can indeed - except for the [-] which is hardcoded. Try the
> > following:
> >
> > #LATEX_HEADER: \setbox0=\hbox{\large$\square$}
> >
> > #+BIND: org-export-latex-list-parameters (:cbon
> > "[{\\parbox[][][c]{\\wd0}{\\large
Skip Collins wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Nick Dokos wrote:
> > I like it! Well, almost all of it: I'd vote for \large, rather than \LARGE,
> > but otherwise it looks good to me.
>
> Can we compromise on \Large ? :-)
>
As Tom Dye pointed out, you can customize :cbon and :cboff, so
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Nick Dokos wrote:
> I like it! Well, almost all of it: I'd vote for \large, rather than \LARGE,
> but otherwise it looks good to me.
Can we compromise on \Large ? :-)
> ,
> | \item [{\parbox[][][c]{\wd0}{\LARGE$\square$}}] a
> `
I tried the optional prea
Thomas S. Dye wrote:
> Skip Collins writes:
>
> > There is a couple of problems with the way checkboxes are typeset in LaTeX.
> >
> > - [ ] a
> > - [X] b
> > - [-] c
> >
> > is translated to the LaTeX
> >
> > \begin{itemize}
> > \item $\Box$ a
> > \item $\boxtimes$ b
> > \item $\boxminus$ c
> >
Skip Collins writes:
> There is a couple of problems with the way checkboxes are typeset in LaTeX.
>
> - [ ] a
> - [X] b
> - [-] c
>
> is translated to the LaTeX
>
> \begin{itemize}
> \item $\Box$ a
> \item $\boxtimes$ b
> \item $\boxminus$ c
> \end{itemize}
>
> The first problem is that \Box is
Skip Collins wrote:
> There is a couple of problems with the way checkboxes are typeset in LaTeX.
>
> - [ ] a
> - [X] b
> - [-] c
>
> is translated to the LaTeX
>
> \begin{itemize}
> \item $\Box$ a
> \item $\boxtimes$ b
> \item $\boxminus$ c
> \end{itemize}
>
> The first problem is that \Box
There is a couple of problems with the way checkboxes are typeset in LaTeX.
- [ ] a
- [X] b
- [-] c
is translated to the LaTeX
\begin{itemize}
\item $\Box$ a
\item $\boxtimes$ b
\item $\boxminus$ c
\end{itemize}
The first problem is that \Box is not the same size as \boxtimes or \boxminus .
The
13 matches
Mail list logo
