Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19442.D38ABBFC@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:38:48 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19442.D38ABBFC" 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]) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Multi-line cells in tables Date: Fri, 17 Aug 1990 13:01:50 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: To: "Rainer Schoepf" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 225 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19442.D38ABBFC Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I've been browsing through some books that describe, among other things, how one should typeset tables. The gurus seem to regard a table entry that consists of a "hanging paragraph" as fairly standard, either = because they explicitly advocate it, or because they simply do it. See: Jan V. White "Graphic Design for the Electronic Age", Watson Guptill, 1988, page 147 (the bit about "first line hanging indent"). "Chicago Manual of Style", Chicago University Press, 1982, pages 338 and 393. Judith Butcher "Copy-editing", Cambridge University Press, 1981, page 136. "Hart's Rules", Oxford University Press, 1983, pages 34-35 and 158. (I think that it is desirable that the LaTeX 3.0 defaults should = generally correspond to standard publishing practice.) Unfortunately, it does not seem to be simply a matter of "In this \documentstyle, tabular's p{...} has to give hanging paragraphs". Some respectable books seem to have left-justified paragraphs in some tables and hanging paragraphs in others. (E.g. in spite of the hanging paragraphs mentioned above, Chicago has left-justification on = pages 176-177 and Butcher has left-justification on pages 68-69.) I can't = detect any underlying "logical structure" that corresponds to the difference = between hanging and left-justified within the same book. In LaTeX 3.0, might it be worth doing one of the following? Either provide something like p{...} [perhaps h{...} for "hanging"] that gives a hanging paragraph rather than a left-justified = paragraph or, if one takes the point-of-view that books that use more than one visual representation for the logical element "paragraph in cell" are wrong (now matter how respectable and esteemed they are), at least put a comment near the code for "paragraph in cell" in the standard style files (or wherever) saying how one can change things so that all "paragraphs within cells" are hanging. Perhaps one might be able to achieve the same effect by using Frank Mittelbach's >{\parindent=3D...}p (if \parindent=3D-1em works), as described in TUGboat, vol. 9, page 299, but it looks as if "hanging paragraph within table cell" is sufficiently standard among gurus that = it would be worth providing explicit support in some way. Incidentally, most gurus mentioned above advocate/do "paragraph within = cell" ragged right but hyphenated. (The exception is Butcher who has ragged = right most of the time but flush right on page 289, possibly because the = column on page 289 is wider than columns elsewhere.) Therefore, it would seem = wise to make ragged right the LaTeX 3.0 default for "paragraph within cell". If a cell contains figures which are described by a multi-line = table-stub, how would one get the figures aligned vertically with the bottom line of = the stub? I have in mind things like Infected trees, % 1.63 0.9 20.3 Chi-square for observed values 7.83 11.09 4.98 (on page 158 of Hart's Rules) and Interest and discount on other lending in sterling 53 38 54 98 141 168 = 211 (on page 65 of John Miles's "Design for desktop publishing"). Would one use [a hanging variation] of {b{...}r} or {b{...}t{...}} (where = b{...} and t{...} are as described in Frank Mittelbach's article)? Again, this convention for alignment seems sufficiently common that I think it = should be available via a simple syntax if it isn't already covered by existing proposals. David = Rhead ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19442.D38ABBFC Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Multi-line cells in tables

I've been browsing through some books that describe, = among other things,
how one should typeset tables.  The gurus seem = to regard a table entry
that consists of a "hanging paragraph" as = fairly standard, either because
they explicitly advocate it, or because they simply = do it.  See:
Jan V. White "Graphic Design for the Electronic = Age",
      Watson Guptill, 1988, = page 147 (the bit about "first line hanging
      indent").
"Chicago Manual of Style", Chicago = University Press, 1982,
      pages 338 and = 393.
Judith Butcher "Copy-editing", Cambridge = University Press, 1981,
      page 136.
"Hart's Rules", Oxford University Press, = 1983, pages 34-35 and 158.
(I think that it is desirable that the LaTeX 3.0 = defaults should generally
correspond to standard publishing practice.)

Unfortunately, it does not seem to be simply a matter = of "In this
\documentstyle, tabular's p{...} has to give hanging = paragraphs".
Some respectable books seem to have left-justified = paragraphs
in some tables and hanging paragraphs in = others.  (E.g. in spite of the
hanging paragraphs mentioned above, Chicago has = left-justification on pages
176-177 and Butcher has left-justification on pages = 68-69.)  I can't detect
any underlying "logical structure" that = corresponds to the difference between
hanging and left-justified within the same = book.

In LaTeX 3.0, might it be worth doing one of the = following?
Either provide something like p{...} [perhaps h{...} = for "hanging"]
      that gives a hanging = paragraph rather than a left-justified paragraph
or, if one takes the point-of-view that books that = use more than one
      visual representation = for the logical element "paragraph in cell"
      are wrong (now matter = how respectable and esteemed they are),
      at least put a comment = near the code for "paragraph in cell" in
      the standard style = files (or wherever) saying how one can change
      things so that all = "paragraphs within cells" are hanging.
Perhaps one might be able to achieve the same effect = by using
Frank Mittelbach's >{\parindent=3D...}p (if = \parindent=3D-1em works),
as described in TUGboat, vol. 9, page 299, but it = looks as if "hanging
paragraph within table cell" is sufficiently = standard among gurus that it
would be worth providing explicit support in some = way.

Incidentally, most gurus mentioned above advocate/do = "paragraph within cell"
ragged right but hyphenated.  (The exception is = Butcher who has ragged right
most of the time but flush right on page 289, = possibly because the column on
page 289 is wider than columns elsewhere.)  = Therefore, it would seem wise
to make ragged right the LaTeX 3.0 default for = "paragraph within cell".

If a cell contains figures which are described by a = multi-line table-stub,
how would one get the figures aligned vertically with = the bottom line of the
stub?  I have in mind things like
      Infected trees, = %   1.63     0.9   20.3
      Chi-square for
        observed = values   7.83   11.09   4.98
(on page 158 of Hart's Rules) and
      Interest and discount = on other
      lending in = sterling           = ;   53   38   54   = 98   141   168   211
(on page 65 of John Miles's "Design for desktop = publishing").  Would
one use [a hanging variation] of {b{...}r} or = {b{...}t{...}} (where b{...}
and t{...} are as described in Frank Mittelbach's = article)?  Again, this
convention for alignment seems sufficiently common = that I think it should
be available via a simple syntax if it isn't already = covered by existing
proposals.

          &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;     David Rhead

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19442.D38ABBFC--