Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.40F9AA1C@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:41:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 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]) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.40F9AA1C" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Appendices Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1991 11:28:13 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: Sender: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" To: "Rainer M. Schoepf" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 324 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.40F9AA1C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Michael commented that: " ... the way the \appendix command works has always seemed slightly = odd to me. It would seem more natural to make \appendix a direct = substitute for \section (in an article documentstyle) or \chapter (in a book documentstyle). Maybe in LaTeX 3.0, with its attribute handling, = we'll be able to say something like \section[variant=3Dappendix]{...}" I presume that doing the above literally would conflict with the = requirement that LaTeX 3.0 should be able to process LaTeX 2.09 input files (which = might use \appendix as defined in the 2.09 manual). So \appendix would have to be left with its 2.09 meaning, but something better could be phased = in. Perhaps one could have .. \begin{backmatter} \begin{appendices} ... \end{appendices} ... \end{backmatter} I think that, if a document has just one appendix, then it is silly to = call it "Appendix A". It can just be called "Appendix" (since there is no "Appendix B"). If LaTeX can't work out for itself that there is only one appendix (e.g. from the .aux file), it might be appropriate to allow a variation of "appendices" that tells LaTeX that there is only one = appendix, e.g. \begin{anappendix} ... \end{anappendix}. There is the problem of how to introduce the individual appendices: by = using \chapter (in book, report, etc.) or \section (in article etc.), or by = using something else? I don't have any specific suggestions here (unless = anyone likes \toplevel), but I think that the question needs considering in conjunction with questions about how to introduce other "top level" = units that appear in the front-matter and back-matter (such as Preface, Acknowledgements, Glossary). = David ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.40F9AA1C Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Appendices

Michael commented that:
    " ... the way the \appendix = command works has always seemed slightly odd
    to me. It would seem more natural = to make \appendix a direct substitute
    for \section (in an article = documentstyle) or \chapter (in a book
    documentstyle). Maybe in LaTeX = 3.0, with its attribute handling, we'll be
    able to say something like = \section[variant=3Dappendix]{...}"

I presume that doing the above literally would = conflict with the requirement
that LaTeX 3.0 should be able to process LaTeX 2.09 = input files (which might
use \appendix as defined in the 2.09 manual).  = So \appendix would have
to be left with its 2.09 meaning, but something = better could be phased in.
Perhaps one could have
..
\begin{backmatter}
   \begin{appendices}
   ...
   \end{appendices}
   ...
\end{backmatter}

I think that, if a document has just one appendix, = then it is silly to call
it "Appendix A".  It can just be = called "Appendix" (since there is no
"Appendix B").  If LaTeX can't work = out for itself that there is only
one appendix (e.g. from the .aux file), it might be = appropriate to allow
a variation of "appendices" that tells = LaTeX that there is only one appendix,
e.g. \begin{anappendix} ... \end{anappendix}.

There is the problem of how to introduce the = individual appendices:  by using
\chapter (in book, report, etc.) or \section (in = article etc.), or by using
something else?  I don't have any specific = suggestions here (unless anyone
likes \toplevel), but I think that the question needs = considering in
conjunction with questions about how to introduce = other "top level" units
that appear in the front-matter and back-matter (such = as Preface,
Acknowledgements, Glossary).

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

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.40F9AA1C--