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: Mon, 11 Jun 90 10:21:20 CET Reply-To: LaTeX-L Mailing list From: PZF5HZ@RUIPC1E.bitnet To: Rainer Schoepf Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 128 Chris gave me a large file (paper) from David R. which I think contains a lot of very useful and welltaken suggestions. One part of it was also in machine readable form and I send it to the list for you to look at. I will bring the whole stuff with me to Texas. Greetings Frank P.S. Since we always have problems with char translations I also append a character table below. %% \CharacterTable %% {Upper-case \A\B\C\D\E\F\G\H\I\J\K\L\M\N\O\P\Q\R\S\T\U\V\W\X\Y\Z %% Lower-case \a\b\c\d\e\f\g\h\i\j\k\l\m\n\o\p\q\r\s\t\u\v\w\x\y\z %% Digits \0\1\2\3\4\5\6\7\8\9 %% Exclamation \! Double quote \" Hash (number) \# %% Dollar \$ Percent \% Ampersand \& %% Acute accent \' Left paren \( Right paren \) %% Asterisk \* Plus \+ Comma \, %% Minus \- Point \. Solidus \/ %% Colon \: Semicolon \; Less than \< %% Equals \= Greater than \> Question mark \? %% Commercial at \@ Left bracket \[ Backslash \\ %% Right bracket \] Circumflex \^ Underscore \_ %% Grave accent \` Left brace \{ Vertical bar \| %% Right brace \} Tilde \~} %% \documentstyle[11pt]{article} \newcounter{exhibit} \newcommand{\BibTeX}{{\rm B\kern-.05em{\sc i\kern-.025em b}\kern-.08em T\kern-.1667em\lower.7ex\hbox{E}\kern-.125emX}} \begin{document} \section{General} \subsection{Assumptions about structure} \LaTeX\ 2.09's assumptions about the structure of a {\tt book} or {\tt report} seem at odds with the usual assumptions in publishing practice. Consequently, the author often ends up doing things that are really the designer's responsibility. In publishing practice, a book-like document would have the following major divisions: \begin{itemize} \item ``preliminary pages'' or ``front matter'', containing table of contents, acknowledgements, etc. Usually numbered in roman. \item main text, containing the chapters. \item ``end pages'' or ``back matter'', containing appendices, bibliography, index, etc. \end{itemize} See exhibit \addtocounter{exhibit}{1} \theexhibit. This divergence between the real structure and that assumed by \LaTeX\ 2.09 forces the author to think visually rather than logically. The author gets involved with: \begin{itemize} \item \verb+\chapter*+ plus \verb+\addcontentsline+ for most ``top level'' units in the front and back matter. The \verb+\chapter*+ command may be appropriate for use inside {\tt sty} files for \verb+\def\tableofcontents+, etc., but will rarely be appropriate (except in conjunction with \verb+\addcontentsline+) in a user's input file. \item having to put \verb+\pagenumbering{roman}+ and \verb+\pagenumbering{arabic}+ around the ``front matter''. \end{itemize} (See exhibit 1 again.) Could (the standard styles for) \LaTeX\ 3.0 work more in terms of the concepts used in publishing practice? The author might, for example, create an input file of the form shown in exhibit \addtocounter{exhibit}{1} \theexhibit. Then details such as roman-numbering, table-of-contents entry, etc.\ could be dealt with in the {\tt sty} file without the author being involved. The \verb+\chapter*+ command (and much use of \verb+\addcontentsline+) would be redundant. Exhibit 1 shows structures that would be better for book-like documents than the structure assumed by \LaTeX\ 2.09's {\tt report} and {\tt book}. It might also be worth looking at some SGML DTDs before deciding on the precise structures to be supported by \LaTeX\ 3.0. (One-to-one mappings between standard \LaTeX\ styles and standard SGML DTDs would be nice!) \subsection{Use of {\tt count}s} When a {\tt dvi} file has been produced by \LaTeX\ 2.09, it is difficult to do page-selection (as usually provided by {\tt dvi}-to-printer software) in the vicinity of roman-numbered ``preliminary pages''. The roman-numbered pages use the same values of \verb+\count0+ as the arabic-numbered ``main text'', so page-specifications can be ambiguous. Could something be done \marginpar{At \protect\LaTeX\ 2.10?} to make page-selection straightforward where roman-numbered pages are followed by arabic-numbered pages? This could take the form of: \begin{itemize} \item roman pages setting \verb+\count0+ negative, as is done in ``plain \TeX''. (There's a {\tt romanneg} style-option at Aston that claims to do this for \LaTeX\ 2.09, but I couldn't get it to work!) \item more ambitiously, use \verb+\count0+ for the page number, \verb+\count1+ for the chapter/appendix number, and \verb+\count2+ for ``major division'' number. (See exhibit \addtocounter{exhibit}{1} \theexhibit.) Then people could: \begin{itemize} \item select by chapter, as suggested by Trevorrow (see exhibit 3), using \verb+\count1+ \item select a particular ``preliminary page'' by using \verb+\count2+ to specify ``preliminary pages'' and \verb+\count0+ to specify the particular page. \end{itemize} \end{itemize} \subsection{Ragged right} People may wish to implement ``ragged right'' designs. They may want \TeX's mathematical typesetting capability and the help that \LaTeX\ can give with section-numbering, cross-referencing, etc., but not want any of the right-justification that \TeX\ supplies by default. This seems respectable, since there are books on design that advocate ``ragged right'' (see exhibit \addtocounter{exhibit}{1} \theexhibit). Unfortunately, to implement a ``ragged right'' design in \LaTeX\ 2.09, it seems necessary to make individual changes to any definitions in a style file that involves ``paragraph makeup''. For example, it is necessary to specify ``ragged right'' for main text, footnotes, captions and list-elements separately. However, if the ``main text'' is to be typeset ``ragged right'', it is most likely that ``ragged right'' will be required everywhere else, too. Could there be some easy mechanism for specifying, in a {\tt sty} file, that ``everything is to be ragged right''? Better still, could there be some easy way of choosing, in a {\tt sty} file, to have everything as what exhibit 4 calls ``rough rag'', ``tight rag'' or ``minimal rag''? \subsection{File names} Might it be worth introducing a naming convention such as: \begin{itemize} \item extension {\tt sty} for a style file \item extension {\tt opt} for a style-option file? \end{itemize} It may help people to find their way round archives such as that at Aston. \section{Preliminary pages} \subsection{Title-page} In \LaTeX\ 2.09, \verb+titlepage+ does a \verb+\setcounter{page}{0}+. Unfortunately, when \verb+twoside+ is used, this leads to the titlepage being given the margins appropriate for a left-hand page, when it should really have the margins for a right-hand page. See exhibit \addtocounter{exhibit}{1} \theexhibit. Since \verb+\thispagestyle{empty}+ is used, the actual number makes no difference in \verb+titlepage+. Presumably the intention is to ensure that the following page is, by default, numbered ``1''. Could some way be found of ensuring that a title-page is given the margins for a right-hand page even when {\tt twoside} is in effect? Perhaps ``0'' could be treated as ``odd'' for the purpose of margins. Better still (because it would be a move towards standard publishing practice), if \verb+\begin{prelimpages}+ and \verb+\end{prelimpages}+ were defined in \LaTeX\ 3.0 (as suggested in exhibit 2), perhaps \verb+\end{prelimpages}+ could re-set the page counter so that the following page would be arabic ``1''. The title-page could be given any appropriate number, and for book-like documents would probably be given a notional number of ``iii'' (see exhibits 1 and 5). \subsection{Those pages without printed numbers} From exhibits 1 and 5, you'll see that the first 4 or 6 ``preliminary pages'' will probably be un-numbered, and that the title-page is only one of these. This being so, {\tt titlepage} seems a misnomer for the environment that one would use to produce such pages. Might {\tt unnumbered} be a better name for the environment used to produce the pages that, if they were numbered, would be i--iv or i--vi? \section{Floats} \subsection{Confusion} The {\tt figure} and {\tt table} environments arrange for: \begin{itemize} \item captions to be numbered \item material to be floated. \end{itemize} Our users seem to want the caption-numbering, but to get confused by the floating. Typically, they go \verb+\begin{table}[h]+ but don't read the ``small print'' on pages 176--178 of the manual, and then come to our Advisory Service asking why the table hasn't appeared ``here'' and why they're being told ``{\tt Too many unprocessed floats}''. Admittedly, much of the problem is that (a) they haven't studied printed books to see what printed books do with figures and tables (c) there is a typewriter tradition of expecting things to stay where they are put (d) they get a half-truth ``from a friend'', and don't study the manual to get the whole truth. But, I think part of the problem is attributable to: \begin{itemize} \item the environment names. ``{\tt table}'' {\em sounds} like it's ``what you {\em must} use for a table'' \item the dual role. People may choose {\tt table} and {\tt figure} in order to get numbered captions: there isn't another off-the-shelf way to get them. They may see the floating as an unwanted side-effect and think (wrongly) that \verb+[h]+ will turn the effect off. \end{itemize} Could environments for ``floating'' be given names that make it obvious that their main purpose is to float things? For example, suppose that someone had to go \verb+\begin{floattable}+ or \verb+\begin{float}{table}+. Even if they found out about this ``from a friend'', they would stand a good chance of realising that they are asking \LaTeX\ to float something (and get a hint that \verb+h+ is ``allowing a null float when aesthetically possible'' rather than ``forcing the table {\it here} under all circumstances''). I'm not sure whether to be optimistic or pessimistic about what would happen if floating environments were given names that made it absolutely clear that their role is to float things. Being optimistic, I might think that users would then be clear what to expect, would be pleased that \LaTeX\ would make their document look like a professionally produced book, and would not use the environments in such a way as to give ``{\tt Too many unprocessed floats}'' over-frequently. Being pessimistic, I wonder if it would be worth providing one or other of: \begin{itemize} \item environments that just put a table or figure ``here'' (with spacing, caption, etc., as for the ``floats''), and give an ``{\tt Underfull vbox}'' if a table or figure can't be fitted on the curre page and has to go on the next one (leaving the current page underfull). For example, \verb+\begin{fixedtable}+ or \verb+\begin{fixed}{table}+. \item a command (or commands) to produce captions in ``ordinary text'' that look the same as (and use the same counters as) the captions produced in the floating environments. For example, \verb+\caption{table}{...}+ or \verb+\tablecaption{...}+. \end{itemize} \subsection{Captions} \subsubsection{\protect\LaTeX\ 2.09's practice} The \LaTeX\ 2.09 manual seems vague about whether the spacing around \verb+\caption+ is designed to go under or over a table/figure. Looking at the standard {\tt doc} files suggests that the same code is used for both figures and tables, and that the resulting caption is intended to go {\it under} the figure or table However, the 2.09 manual points out that ``there can be several captions in a {\tt figure} or {\tt table} environment''. \subsubsection{Publishing practice} In publishing practice, it seems respectable to have a combination of: \begin{itemize} \item table captions {\em above} the table \item figure captions {\em below} the figure. \end{itemize} The {\it Chicago Manual of Style}, Butcher's {\it Copy-editing} and and Hart's {\it Rules} all adopt this combination. See exhibit \addtocounter{exhibit}{1} \theexhibit. (Perhaps it is because tables may have notes underneath and may be split over several pages.) In fact, judging by Chicago, Butcher and Hart, publishing practice seems to put the following elements into floats: \begin{itemize} \item for tables: the title (and possibly a subtitle), the table itself, source notes, general notes, specific notes, probability levels\footnote{A statistician colleague tells me that statisticians now prefer ``confidence intervals''.} \item for figures: the figure itself, the caption, the legend. See exhibit 6. \end{itemize} % CMoS p. 312. Sensible examples of floats with more than one caption seem rare. Hart has some examples of figures side-by-side, but this is really a case of figures ending up together after floating, rather than having to be kept together while floated. Butcher mentions situations where ``two tables should appear in the same % p 161 opening, so that they can be compared'', but some mechanism other than that provided by \LaTeX\ 2.09 would be necessary to achieve this. Overall, \LaTeX\ 2.09's vagueness about how the author and the designer are to use \verb+\caption+ seems likely to: \begin{itemize} \item make it difficult for the designer to implement decisions about the positioning, spacing and fonts for \begin{itemize} \item table titles and notes \item figure captions and legends \end{itemize} \item leave the author doing visual design: experimenting until things ``look right''. \end{itemize} \subsubsection{\protect\LaTeX\ 3.0} \label{float3} It seems to me that the advantages of having the usual \LaTeX\ ``separation of the designer's and author's roles'' within the body of a float would far outweigh any flexibility that ``several captions within a float'' allows. (If it is desired to allow two narrow floats side-by-side, this should be done by letting the user tell \LaTeX\ about the width of the float. If it is desired to cater for rare situations where ``two tables should appear in the same opening'', this should be done by arranging some ``magnetic attraction'' between the two---or by letting the user fiddle with the {\tt tex} file.) I would suggest that: \begin{itemize} \item notice be given that ``more than one caption within a float'' will not be supported after \LaTeX\ 2.10 \item at \LaTeX\ 3.0, ideally \begin{itemize} \item the successor to {\tt table} should require the user to specify the block to be floated in terms of the logical elements ``title'' (plus possible ``subtitle''), ``table itself'', ``source notes'', ``general notes'', ``specific notes'', ``probability levels'' \item the successor to {\tt figure} should require the user to specify the block to be floated in terms of the logical elements ``figure itself'', ``caption'', ``legend'' \item the positioning, typeface, etc. to be used for the logical elements should be under the control of the document-designer via the {\tt sty} file. A designer should be able to implement a Chicago-Butcher-Hart design that has: table-title at the top of a floated ``table block'', with table-notes at the bottom of the block; ``caption'' and ``legend'' (in that order) at the bottom of a floated ``figure block''. Equally, a designer should be able to implement other conventions for layout of the ``logical elements'' within floated blocks. \end{itemize} \end{itemize} \subsection{Landscape} The precise details of what one does to place an object ``landscape'' will depend on the \verb+\special+s available for a particular printer. It may be unwise to define official environments, since they would not be available to everyone that has \LaTeX\ 3.0. (But if you want to define a standard ``optional extension'', you might go for something like the definitions of {\tt landscapetable} and {\tt landscapefigure} shown in exhibit \addtocounter{exhibit}{1}\theexhibit, based on some code put in {\tt UKTeX} by Sebastian Rahtz.) Nevertheless, you can assume that people are going to want to define environments that place objects ``landscape''. You might be able to help by providing the ability to define: \begin{itemize} \item a float that must appear on a ``page of floats'' on which it is the only float \item a \verb+\thispagestyle+ that takes effect after floating. There doesn't seem to be a consensus between the gurus about whether one should print headings on pages with full-page tables (Hart: for; Chicago: against) but if a designer opts to suppress the headings, they'll need a mechanism. \end{itemize} \section{Tables} \subsection{Decimals} All the books that I've seen about table layout ({\it Chicago Manual of Style}, Hart's {\it Rules}, White's book, Butcher's {\em Copy-editing}, the British Standards Institution's DD52) mention ``making sure that, in a column of numbers, the decimal points line up''. Thus ``alignment of decimal points'' seems a ``fundamental requirement'', at least as important as {\tt tabular}'s current {\tt l}, {\tt c} and {\tt r}, not an ``optional extra''. I realise that the \LaTeX\ 2.09 manual shows a couple of tricks that can be used (zero-width boxes, page 98; high--low, page 182), and that Frank Mittlebach has the \verb+>{\centerdots}c<{\endcenterdots}+ idea (TUGboat, {\bf 9}, p.\ 299). But these techniques seem unnecessarily subtle for such a fundamental requirement. Couldn't there be something as easy as {\tt l}, {\tt c} and {\tt r} for ``alignment on decimal points''? Bell Labs.\ managed to make ``lining numbers up'' easy in {\tt tbl} years ago! (See exhibit \addtocounter{exhibit}{1} \theexhibit.) \subsection{Rules, i.e.\ lines} I've tried to use \LaTeX\ 2.09 to typeset some of the tables shown as examples by gurus of table layout. I've had partial success. (See exhibit \addtocounter{exhibit}{1} \theexhibit.) It looks as though, for complete success in laying tables out as the gurus recommend, one needs: \begin{itemize} \item a choice of thickness for \verb+\hline+s. If one follows DD52, the choice would be between 0.5pt, 1pt, 2pt and 4pt. \item an option of specifying that adjacent \verb+\cline+s should not join up. \end{itemize} \subsection{Notes} The facilities provided by \LaTeX\ 2.09 (``put a {\tt tabular} inside a {\tt minipage} and use \verb+\footnote+'') do not seem particularly suitable for providing notes about tables in the way advocated by the gurus. (See exhibit \addtocounter{exhibit}{1}~\theexhibit.) \begin{itemize} \item The gurus seem to typeset notes no wider than the table. However, if one has to declare the {\tt minipage} before typesetting the {\tt tabular}, the {\tt minipage} must be wider than the expected width of the {\tt tabular}, so the footnotes will generally be wider than the table. \item The gurus advocate putting ``general notes'' before ``specific notes''. There does not seem to be an easy way of getting ``general notes'' out in the style that \verb+\footnote+ will use for ``specific notes''. \item Having to redefine \verb+\footnoterule+ (to give a null rule) is just an added irritation. \end{itemize} It might be better if: \begin{itemize} \item the manual for \LaTeX\ 3.0 refrained from suggesting ``put a {\tt tabular} inside a {\tt minipage}, use \verb+\footnote+ and re-define \verb+\footnoterule+'' \item \LaTeX\ 3.0 made the width of the most recently typeset {\tt tabular} available in a variable, so that the user could declare a {\tt minipage} or a {\tt tabular} of the same width (or a related width) immediately below, to hold the notes. See exhibit 9. \item there was some means whereby the user could tell \LaTeX\ to base it's decision about {\tt tabular}-width on the rows that hold the table-proper but could let the {\tt tabular} continue below the table-proper. Notes could then be provided in ``extra rows'' that had the same width as the table-proper. \end{itemize} It would be even better if the user specified the block to be floated in terms of the logical elements ``title'', ``subtitle'', ``table proper'', ``source notes'', ``general notes'', ``specific notes'', ``probabilities'' (as suggested in section \ref{float3}), and \LaTeX\ 3.0 and the {\tt sty} file took care of the detailed layout. \section{Lists of references; bibliographies} \subsection{Title} The \LaTeX\ 2.09 ``standard styles'' seem to assume that a ``bibliography'' is merely a long ``list of references''. However, many people use ``bibliography'' to mean something different from ``list of references'' (e.g., the British Library chap we heard on February 21st). There may also be situations where: \begin{itemize} \item an author wishes to use something like {\tt thebibliography} for ``Select Bibliography'' or ``Further Reading''. See exhibit \addtocounter{exhibit}{1}~\theexhibit. \item a document might have more than one {\tt thebibliography}, for example (a) ``References'' then ``Further reading'' (b) as suggested in the draft British Standard for theses, ``List of references'' then ``Bibliography''. \end{itemize} Thus it seems to me that it is important to enable the author to give {\tt thebibliography} a title that accurately describes its contents. Consequently, I think that the approach take in {\tt german.sty} (in the Aston archive) is mistaken. For example, having \verb+\def\refname{References}+ and \verb+\def\bibname{Bibliography}+ for English will tend to perpetuate the mistaken assumption that ``an article has a list-of-references while a report or book has a bibliography'', and hence to perpetuate inaccurate titles. I think that: \begin{itemize} \item it would be better to have just one default title per language, irrespective of \verb+\documentstyle+ \item the default title should be the usual description of a list from which one \verb+\cite+s. For English, we might have \verb+\def\refname{References}+ as the default. \item there should be an easy mechanism (such as that shown in exhibit 11) to allow the author to replace the default title. \end{itemize} \subsection{Schemes supported} In publishing practice, the two most important citation schemes are ``reference by number'' and author-date. See exhibit \addtocounter{exhibit}{1}~\theexhibit. The definition of \verb+\cite+ and \verb+\bibitem+ in \LaTeX\ 2.09 supports ``reference by number'', but anyone wanting to use a standard author-date scheme: \begin{itemize} \item has to re-define \verb+\cite+, to get ``('' and ``)'' \item has to re-define \verb+\bibitem+, to suppress the \verb+[+{\it key\/}\verb+]+ printed by default \item will probably want a command such as \verb+\shortcite+, to deliver just the ``date'' part when the author's name occurs naturally in a sentence. (See exhibit 12.) \end{itemize} This generally means that people wanting to use author-date: \begin{itemize} \item are unable to use standard programs such as {\tt lablst} which assume the original \LaTeX\ 2.09 definitions \item have to specify ``I'm using author-date'' in two places: as a style-option in their \verb+\documentstyle+ command, and in their \verb+\bibliographystyle+ command. This seems unreasonable. \end{itemize} Can anything be done in \LaTeX\ 3.0 to give author-date the same status as ``reference by number''? \begin{itemize} \item Perhaps if \verb+\bibitem+ had {\it two} optional arguments, it could cope with both reference-by-number and author-date (where author-date would support \verb+\shortcite+). (Could this support the ``short title'' scheme too? See exhibit 12.) \item Alternatively, it might be worth having 2 parallel sets of commands: \begin{itemize} \item \verb+\cite+, \verb+thebibliography+ and \verb+\bibitem+, for reference by number \item \verb+\adcite+, \verb+\shortadcite+, \verb+adbibliography+ and \verb+\aditem+, for author-date. \end{itemize} This would go against the \LaTeX\ philosophy of separating appearance from structure,\footnote{% Or would it? Maybe an author-date scheme is structurally different from a reference-by-number scheme.} but would give a standard interface for author-date users, thus getting away from a lot of ad-hoc-ery. \end{itemize} \subsection{Consequences for \protect\BibTeX} The situation mentioned in section 5.1, where a document may have more than one {\tt thebibliography} may have particular implications for \BibTeX. A document might have ``References'' to list all the works cited, and ``Further reading'' to gives further details of some of them. In \LaTeX\ 2.09 terms, one might need 2 \verb+\bibliography+s with 2 different \verb+\bibliographystyle+s. Does one need the ``bibliography style'' to be an argument of the \verb+\bibliography+ command, so as to allow for this possibility? \subsection{Subdivisions} Except when using an author-date scheme, an author might reasonably wish to subdivide a reference list. See exhibit \addtocounter{exhibit}{1}\theexhibit. Can some mechanism (\verb+\subbibliography{...}+?) be provided so that the author can place a subheading in a reference list to indicate the start of a new category? (It would be nice if the mechanism allowed a {\tt bst} file programmer to sort by ``category field'', and then write an appropriate category heading to a {\tt bbl} file, so that \BibTeX\ users could potentially have subdivided reference lists too.) \section{``Over-long'' headings} Although the \LaTeX\ 2.09 manual explains that giving an over-long {\it heading} argument in sectioning commands, \verb+\caption+, etc.\ can cause a ``{\tt buffer size}'' error, it seems perverse that an error can occur (for example) because of the size of a ``list of tables'' string {\em when the user hasn't actually given a \verb+\listoftables+ command}. Could \LaTeX\ 3.0 deal with over-long arguments in sectioning, \verb+\caption+, etc., commands as follows? \begin{itemize} \item Instead of regarding {\it heading} as the default {\it toc-entry}, text to go in page-header, {\it lot-entry}, {\it lof-entry}, etc., regard just the first 50-or-so characters of {\it heading} as the default {\it toc-entry}, etc. \item If the user supplies a {\it heading} that is more than 50-or-so characters: \begin{itemize} \item If there is no \verb+[+{\it lst-entry}\verb+]+ argument, put the first 50-or-so characters of {\it heading} to the {\tt aux} file, followed (if truncation was necessary) by \verb+\dots+ or ``etc.'' or some other truncation indicator. The chances are that the user doesn't want an entry in the table-of-contents, list-of-tables, list-of-figures, or hasn't thought about the implications of the length of {\it heading} for the table-of-contents, etc. The user may well be mis-using \verb+\caption+ for (in a table) the title {\em and notes} or (in a figure) the caption {\em and legend}. As page 126 of the \LaTeX\ 2.09 manual says ``such a long entry won't help the reader''. The first 50-or-so characters will give the user something that ``will do'' until they've thought about what they really want. \item If truncation was necessary, send a message to the user's terminal and {\tt log} file saying, for example, ``{\tt Warning: Your caption is more than 50 characters long. Use \verb+\caption+'s optional lot-entry argument if you intend to use \verb+\listoftables+}''. \item Allow the user to supply a {\it lst-entry} of up to the 2.09 limits if they do it explicitly through the optional \verb+[+{\it lst-entry\/}\verb+]+ argument. (They're explicitly using {\it lst-entry}, so they probably know what they're doing and really want these characters in the table-of-contents or whatever.) \end{itemize} \end{itemize} This approach should: \begin{itemize} \item eliminate the situations where \LaTeX\ gives an error message because of an over-long {\it heading} even when {\it heading} isn't actually going to be printed anywhere where its length will be a problem \item give the user an authoring problem ``How can I improve this stopgap list-of-tables entry that \LaTeX\ has kindly supplied?'' rather than a de-bugging problem ``Why is user-hostile \LaTeX\ giving me this obscure error message?''. \end{itemize} \section{Page headers} Suppose that, in a book: \begin{itemize} \item the design requires chapters to start on a right-hand page \item chapter $i$ ends on a right-hand page, so \LaTeX\ must produce an empty left-hand page before starting chapter $i+1$. \end{itemize} In this situation, a publisher seems to assume that the empty left-hand page is neither in chapter $i$ nor in chapter $i+1$ (see exhibit \addtocounter{exhibit}{1} \theexhibit) and hence that the empty page should have no ``Chapter \dots'' page-heading. \LaTeX\ 2.09, on the other hand, gives it a page-heading to say that it it is part of chapter $i$ (which looks silly). Could the \LaTeX\ 3.0 version of {\tt book} use \verb+\thispagestyle{plain}+ or \verb+\thispagestyle{empty}+ for a left-hand blank page that separates 2 chapters? \section{Sections} The definition of \verb+\@startsection+ in {\tt latex.tex} allows for ``run-in headings''. However, a design often involves some punctuation between a run-in heading and the following text, e.g. ``a full stop unless the heading naturally ends in a question mark or exclamation mark''. (See exhibit \addtocounter{exhibit}{1} \theexhibit.) Would it be possible, at \LaTeX\ 3.0, to define the successor to \verb+\@startsection+ in such a way that, if there is to be a run-in heading, the {\tt sty} file can specify default punctuation betwen the heading and the following text? \section{Lists} \subsection{Within paragraphs} The reader needs to be able to distinguish between: \begin{enumerate} \item ``list at end of paragraph'' \item ``list within paragraph''. \end{enumerate} With \LaTeX\ 2.09, this is difficult in designs that have un-indented paragraphs, because ``the vertical space following the environment is the same as the one preceding it'' (2.09 manual, page 114). Case 1 looks identical to case 2. Please could \LaTeX\ 3.0 implement ``the text following a displayed paragraph environment begins a new paragraph if there is a blank line after the \verb+\end+ command'' (2.09 manual, page 165) for both \verb+\parindent+ and \verb+\parskip+, so that case 1 looks different from case 2 even when \verb+\parindent+ is zero?\footnote{% I'm probably just agreeing here with Frank Mittelbach that \LaTeX\ 2.09 has ``an actual conceptual bug'' (TUGboat, {\bf 10}, p.\ 684).} \subsection{An interrupted {\tt enumerate}?} Would commands such as \verb+\suspend{enumerate}+ and \verb+\resume{enumerate}+ be possible, so that the author can introduce some items in a list with one sentence and then introduce further items in the same list with another sentence? It would be easier than getting involved with \verb+\setcounter{enumi}+. \section{{\tt verbatim}} \subsection{Vertical space} For lists in designs that have un-indented paragraphs, I generally set \verb+\parsep+ and \verb+\itemsep+ to zero and \verb+\topsep+ to \verb+-\parskip+, to eliminate all vertical spacing. The objective is to make it clear where paragraphs begin and end. I think that: \begin{itemize} \item extra ``blank lines'' in lists, and around {\tt verbatim}, will make paragraph-divisions less clear \item the bullet or ``label'' is a clear enough indicator of where a list-item starts, and the font-change is a clear enough indication of where verbatim starts. \end{itemize} So far, with \LaTeX\ 2.09, I've been unable to produce {\tt sty} files that close lists up satisfactorily when a list contains some \verb+verbatim+. I guessed that, since \verb+verbatim+ uses \verb+\trivlist+, changing the list spacing should eliminate the vertical space around \verb+verbatim+ too. Unfortunately, I end up with the wrong spacing around \verb+verbatim+ (see exhibit \addtocounter{exhibit}{1} \theexhibit). Anything that can be done in \LaTeX\ 3.0 to make it easier to eliminate the vertical spacing around {\tt verbatim}, as can be done for lists, would be appreciated. \subsection{Horizontal space} For computer input/output, one should use the {\tt verbatim} environment. One might reasonably say that ``computer input/output is a type of quote'', and so want to put a particular horizontal space onto each line before {\tt verbatim} material is printed. In \LaTeX\ 2.09, this does not seem easy (and, because {\tt verbatim} can't be used in the definitions of other environments, one can't define another environment that does it either). Could something be provided in \LaTeX\ 3.0 that does for {\tt verbatim} what \verb+\leftmargin+ does for lists? \section{Borrowing some margin} It may be possible to deal with features (such as tables, figures and equations) that are a little too wide for the normal portrait text-width by temporarily increasing the text-width. This seems to be countenanced, in publishing practice, by Chicago (see exhibit \addtocounter{exhibit}{1} \theexhibit). Might it be worth defining a standard environment ({\tt borrowmargin} ?) in \LaTeX\ 3.0 that does this? Exhibit \theexhibit\ shows a prototype definition. (It would be better to avoid the {\tt minipage} in this prototype, since it changes footnote numbering and affects the vertical spacing around the enclosed feature.) \section{A user's comments} \begin{footnotesize} \begin{verbatim} Subject: LaTeX changes From: Peter_A._Brook@uk.ac.nottingham.ccc.vme Date: Tue,24 Apr 90 13:45:40 BST To: David_Rhead@uk.ac.nottingham.ccc.vme Msg ID: <24 Apr 90 13:45:40 A1029E@UK.AC.NOTT.VME> David These comments below are the distillation of comments made by our post-grads and myself. 1. A greater availability of fonts, such as Times-Roman. An improvement in the existing fonts to allow larger (and smaller) sizes as well as bold fonts in sans serif styles as well. 2. Improved spacing in the tabular environment. At present we find that tables can look cluttered, especially if large fonts or sub(super)footnotes are used in them. 3. Easier generation of tables of contents. At present, References and so on are ommitted and it is very difficult to get them included. 4. Better figure and table environments. It is difficult to know where these are going to end up in the document. 5. The ability to have grey shades as a background to text. For example, in a table it may be desireable to have one column or row highlighted to make it stand out. 6. Better picture drawing facilities, especially thicker lines and in different grey-shades. 7. We frequently wish to leave a number of blank pages for figures etc. and a command such as \blankpage{4} to give 4 blank pages would be useful. The fourth point is one which you cover in your wish-list but I have included it for completeness. Peter. \end{verbatim} \end{footnotesize} \section{My comments} \subsection{Fonts} Judging by Frank Mittelbach's article (TUGboat, {\bf 10}, 681--690), it looks as though you have ``greater availability of fonts'' in hand. \subsection{Spacing in {\tt tabular} and {\tt array}} Peter Brook's comment reminded me of: \begin{itemize} \item one of our other users who had problems with superscripts touching an \verb+\hline+ \item Frank Mittelbach's paragraph about \verb+\extrarowheight+ in his article about new {\tt array} and {\tt tabular} environments (TUGboat, {\bf 9}, 298--313). It worried me that his default would be ``horizontal lines to touch capitals and superscripts'' (with the user able to use \verb+\extrarowheight+ or, presumably, \verb+\arraystretch+), rather than the default being ``horizontal lines {\em don't\/} touch capitals or superscripts'' (with the user having the option to make them touch in the unlikely event that touching is required). \end{itemize} \TeX-related software is usually very good at ensuring ``the right space'' between things. Couldn't \LaTeX\ 3.0 ensure that, by default, a horizontal line will keep clear of the tops of capital letters and of superscripts? (A strut or some \verb+\\[...]+ in the definition of \verb+\hline+, perhaps?) I don't see any snag from a ``design'' point-of-view: the gurus seem to put space around horizontal rules. See exhibit \addtocounter{exhibit}{18}\theexhibit. From a user-support point-of-view, I think that ``keeping \verb+\hline+ visually distinct from the characters in preceding/following rows'' is a better default than ``risking \verb+\hline+ touching characters in preceding/following rows''. Similarly, better automatic vertical spacing within {\tt array} would be nice. \subsection{Easier generation of table-of-contents} This was one of the things I had in mind in Section 1.1 and exhibits 1 \& 2 of my initial ``wish list''. \subsection{One row or column of a table highlighted} I doubt whether grey shades would fit in with the way that \TeX\ works, but easy ways to emphasise a row/column would be nice. In Frank Mittelbach's TUGboat {\bf 9} article, he gives a way of emphasising the whole of a column (without having to begin every entry with, e.g., \verb+\bf+). Would something similar be possible for rows? For example, could there be an easy way of specifying that a row of column-headings is to be typeset in bold, without having to \verb+\bf+ each one individually? See exhibit \addtocounter{exhibit}{1}\theexhibit. \subsection{Better picture drawing} I'm not sure about this. I doubt whether \LaTeX\ will ever be able to compete with software that is {\em designed\/} for drawing pictures. If we are able to provide facilities whereby people can get ``encapsulated PostScript'' from their favourite graphics package into a \LaTeX-ed document, the demand for anything more sophisticated in {\tt picture} may die away. \subsection{Blank pages for figures} Technical documents often have full-page graphs etc.\ produced by separate picture-drawing software. The picture-drawing software may be told that it is to prepare output for A4, and the output may appear as an A4 sheet from a graph-plotter or laser-printer. The user may be able to cut down the size a bit by asking for generous margins or photoreducing. In these circumstances, my guess is that the user would want \LaTeX\ to provide a page that has a number and possibly a caption, but otherwise to leave ``as much space as aesthetically possible'' for the illustration that was put onto A4 by the other software. Some convention about the command needed to get ``as much space as aesthetically possible'' might be useful (although the actual values might vary between styles). For example, perhaps a user should be able to go \begin{verbatim} \begin{figure}[p] \vspace{\maxportfigure} \caption{...} \end{figure} \end{verbatim} or \begin{verbatim} \begin{landscapefigure} \vspace{\maxlandfigure} \caption{...} \end{landscapefigure} \end{verbatim} so as to get captions at the edge of where the text area would have been if the page hadn't been almost blank. See exhibit \addtocounter{exhibit}{1}\theexhibit. \end{document}