X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil t nil]
	[nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil])
Date:         Tue, 20 Feb 90 13:13:42 CET
From: Rainer Schoepf <BK4@DHDURZ1.bitnet>
Organization: Inst. f. Theor. Physik d. Univ. Heidelberg
Subject:      Re: Startsection proposal
To: LATEX-L@unido.informatik.uni-dortmund.de
In-Reply-To:  Victor Eijkhout's message of Mon, 19 Feb 90 09:21:01 MET
Status: R
X-Status: 
X-Keywords:                  
X-UID: 10


I read with interest Victors \@startsection proposal.
While I think that he's right that no or only a few things
should be hardwired into such an generic command I believe
we have to take much more things into acount.

Some thoughts:

1) First of all we have to make \@startsection work with
   the standard LaTeX syntax, i.e. it has to work for
   \section{..} \section:..|{..} and for \section*{..}.
   This means that we can not propose a commmand where the
   designer has to specify things like \thesection somewhere.
   This would not work for \section* or for some settings
   of secnumdepth.

2) I can think at the moment of three possible approaches:
   a) Give \@startsection some more arguments to cover the
      possibilities. I don't mean that it is necessary to
      leave the internal syntax the same, especially the way to
      code runin and afterindent is somewhat funny but the
      funtionality should be the same.
   b) Make some sort of optional argument like the one in the
      list environment where the designer is able to overwrite
      default values by saying something like \afterindenttrue
      or <parm>=<value> or whatever.
      I think we could do this even with plain TeX sort of syntax
      which is much more compact because this is not an ordinary
      user interface.
   c) A more different point of view is to think of a heading
      as a graphical object composed of some units where the designer
      is free to combine them to form the actual heading. To
      explain this (which I like best althrough I haven't found
      the time yet to think it out properly) let's discuss
      first what sort of object might be necessary (there might be
      more):
      i) there is the heading text information probably simply
         a parameter like #5
      ii) There is the `number box'. There could be an argument
          to \@startsection where the outcome of the number
          (if any) is specified: {\thesection\quad} for example.
          To access the  number in the heading (i.e. to place it)
          there could be some macros and dimension like \placenumber
          \numberwidth (a dimen) \numberheight etc.
          Depending on whether or not a number is to produce these
          commands are set by \@startsection.
       iii) maybe one could provide additional helping macros,
            for example to determine if something will fit one a single
            line or not.
       Finally \@startsection would have a third argument where
       the designer would put in TeX code to describe the layout.

3) As I said, I like c) best but one has to think a lot about
   advantages and disadvantages before making a choice.

4) The same is true for the table of contents: we have an
   generic command \@dottedcontentsline but things like
   \l@chapter have to be defined totally by hand. In my
   opinion a smiliar approach could be used.
   I case of tableofcontents additional objects for the pagenumber
   are necessary.

5) Your turn!


I think I have to spend a few more words on sending stuff to this
list since the discussion in the begining (about reply) has had a
lot of unwanted effects.  Most mail of general interest was sent to us
instead of to the list.  This list is not a forum for me telling you
my thoughts about the subject so please feel free to send your thoughts
directly to the list.

Another point: In one of my mails I asked for your opinion about
classes of documents, what sort of commands to provide, and so on.
'Till now there was no reply whatsoever.  So, I like to repeat this
question.
Is there anybody out there who would undergo the trouble to make
a list of all (user) commands currently defined by the different
document styles?  Maybe it is easier to go on from some definite list.
(I will do it myself if nobody can spare the time, but I'm somewhat
out of breath at the moment, still working on the printer change
XEROX to IBM at the EDS so it will take some time)
Any takers?

Greetings Frank