Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.3EA11524@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:41:47 +0100 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.3EA11524" x-vm-v5-data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil t 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: Re: Standard styles Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1991 13:59:57 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Sender: "Sebastian Rahtz" To: "Rainer M. Schoepf" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 298 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.3EA11524 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable LaTeX-L Mailing list writes: > My feeling on the standard document styles (and this is the way > that I teach this in my LaTeX classes) is that they DEFINE the > structures that appear in a document type, but only give an > EXAMPLE of the appearance of those structures as printed. My yes, fine. a good approach. but it is not very efficient if the examples are not directly useable. you are talking about people writing new style files, but 99.9% of the punters have no clue even where the style files *are* let alone what to do to amend them. I applaud David Rhead's notes. Lamport states clearly that he consulted document designers when he created the examples styles; history seems to show that not many people agree with his style designers, so lets at least try again and make LaTeX acceptable to a few more people. Would anyone like to claim that LaTeX's defaults are acceptable to any publisher they have dealt with? I'd suggest that the defaults are quite suitable for computer science technical reports; does not LaTeX aspire to be a professional tool? > Rather than trying to do something like say, let's make article > look as much like some "standard" appearance for articles (good > luck), let's create good structure definitions in our styles, the two are not opposed I was interested by David's reflection that [12pt]{article} was contradictory. I suggest that the reason it exists is that people use `article' for 90% of their daily work (like quick reports on what = they are up to, or class notes) *not* for journal articles. its a misnomer, IMHO. I have never yet produced a document for use outside this building that did not require a style different from `article' - are there *any* journals which would accept it? This is no reflection, of course, on LL's work! I just think the style designers he talked to are unrepresentative of the profession. These discussions often concentrate on headings, by the way. Lets not forget lists. Maybe David can tell us the ISO standard for vertical space between items in an enumerated list Sebastian PS what puts me off going away and playing with these ideas in sample styles is a slight fear that the style interface will be very different from what I have now. After hearing Frank talk about the concept of an environment stack driven by rules, I have been lying awake at night trying to decide what I think. If that *is* the model to adopt, then it affects a lot of the ways one thinks about style files. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.3EA11524 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Standard styles

LaTeX-L Mailing list <LATEX-L@EARN.DHDURZ1> = writes:
 > My feeling on the standard document styles = (and this is the way
 > that I teach this in my LaTeX classes) is = that they DEFINE the
 > structures that appear in a document type, = but only give an
 > EXAMPLE of the appearance of those = structures as printed. My
yes, fine. a good approach. but it is not very = efficient if the
examples are not directly useable. you are talking = about people
writing new style files, but 99.9% of the punters = have no clue even
where the style files *are* let alone what to do to = amend them.

I applaud David Rhead's notes. Lamport states clearly = that he
consulted document designers when he created the = examples styles;
history seems to show that not many people agree with = his style
designers, so lets at least try again and make LaTeX = acceptable to a
few more people. Would anyone like to claim that = LaTeX's defaults are
acceptable to any publisher they have dealt with? I'd = suggest that the
defaults are quite suitable for computer science = technical reports;
does not LaTeX aspire to be a professional = tool?

 > Rather than trying to do something like = say, let's make article
 > look as much like some = "standard" appearance for articles (good
 > luck), let's create good structure = definitions in our styles,
the two are not opposed

I was interested by David's reflection that
 [12pt]{article}
was contradictory. I suggest that the reason it = exists is that people
use `article' for 90% of their daily work (like quick = reports on what they
are up to, or class notes) *not* for journal = articles. its a misnomer,
IMHO. I have never yet produced a document for use = outside this
building that did not require a style different from = `article' - are
there *any* journals which would accept it? This is = no reflection, of
course, on LL's work! I just think the style = designers he talked to
are unrepresentative of the profession.

These discussions often concentrate on headings, by = the way. Lets not
forget lists. Maybe David can tell us the ISO = standard for vertical
space between items in an enumerated list

Sebastian

PS what puts me off going away and playing with these = ideas in sample
styles is a slight fear that the style interface will = be very
different from what I have now. After hearing Frank = talk about the
concept of an environment stack driven by rules, I = have been lying
awake at night trying to decide what I think. If that = *is* the model
to adopt, then it affects a lot of the ways one = thinks about style
files.



------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.3EA11524--