Re: Are 'placement' and 'float' "obsolete terms" in inline images exported to LaTeX?

[Ihor Radchenko]

Juan Manuel Macías <maciaschain@posteo.net> writes:

> An example of more "unexpected" (but very practical) uses is this one
> with three subfigures and the subcaption package:
>
> ┌────
> │ #+caption: Main caption
> │ #+begin_figure
> │ #+CAPTION: subcaption 1
> │ #+ATTR_LaTeX: :float subfigure :placement {\textwidth} :center nil :width 
> \textwidth
> │ [[file:/usr/share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/mwe/example-image-a.jpg]]
> ...
> I think this is a case where certain elements of Org have evolved
> (consciously or unconsciously) ahead of the names, and these names have
> become somewhat outdated. There is not only the case of :placement. Even
> :float seems imprecise, since can be used to create a minipage, and the
> minipage environment is not a float environment. Would it be worth
> making those names obsolete (with backward compatibility, of course) and
> replacing them with slightly more precise ones? I think that new names
> would give the user an idea of more variety of uses, like the examples I
> have put here.

I am not sure about obsolete - I see not reason to obsolete the intended
use case. Your example is rather an abuse.

What we might do it to introduce something like a new :wrap attribute:

#+attr_latex: :wrap subfigure,{\textwidht}

I think we have discussed something similar in the past, but more
generic - allow wrapping arbitrary Org elements (headings, drawers,
paragraphs, etc) on export.

-- 
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at <https://orgmode.org/>.
Support Org development at <https://liberapay.com/org-mode>,
or support my work at <https://liberapay.com/yantar92>