Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.9F3BEA2C@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:44:29 +0100 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9F3BEA2C" x-vm-v5-data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil 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: {1} RE: {1} Size options (and \documentstyle syntax) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1992 13:09:02 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: Sender: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" To: "Multiple recipients of" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 612 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9F3BEA2C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable David Rhead asks [and goes on to discuss] `Is the following goal attainable? "Style-files that will deliver good/valid designs: * for all permutations of 9pt, 10pt, 11pt, 12pt with/without = twocolumn * on A4 (or similar) paper without any crop marks that indicate the size of paper for which the design is intended."' I believe the fundamental flaw in the question is the caveat `On A4 ... without any crop marks ...' I can see no reason why style files \stress {should} have to cope with = that eventuality. I have long maintained (though I note that there is = considerable opposition) that generic styles (e.g. book, article), should have no = default dimensions associated with them. I believe that it should be the = responsibility of the specific style file [frivolous example = `Runnymede-books-quarto-editions'] to establish the appropriate dimensions, and in the absence of any = specific style file, the generic style file should issue an appropriate error = message warning the user that a certain minimum number of dimensions (and = perhaps other parameters) need be set before compilation can proceed. To assume that every style, at every size, can yield acceptable output = on A4 paper is surely indefensible. Rather than constrain the user into a = restrictive set of possible font sizes, far better to require that the user = indicate, implicitly or explicitly, the crop and text dimensions of the target = page. At the very worst, and rather than force the user to adopt a two-column = layout in direct contradiction to his/her implicit/explicit instructions to the contrary, why not generate two-up on A4 landscape as the fall-back from = a too- small font size for A4? ** Phil. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9F3BEA2C Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable {1} RE: {1} Size options (and \documentstyle syntax)

David Rhead asks [and goes on to discuss]

`Is the following goal attainable?
  "Style-files that will deliver good/valid = designs:
   * for all permutations of 9pt, 10pt, = 11pt, 12pt with/without twocolumn
   * on A4 (or similar) paper without any = crop marks that indicate
     the size of paper for which = the design is intended."'

I believe the fundamental flaw in the question is the = caveat `On A4 ...
without any crop marks ...'

I can see no reason why style files \stress {should} = have to cope with that
eventuality.  I have long maintained (though I = note that there is considerable
opposition) that generic styles (e.g. book, article), = should have no default
dimensions associated with them.  I believe that = it should be the responsibility
of the specific style file [frivolous example = `Runnymede-books-quarto-editions']
to establish the appropriate dimensions, and in the = absence of any specific
style file, the generic style file should issue an = appropriate error message
warning the user that a certain minimum number of = dimensions (and perhaps other
parameters) need be set before compilation can = proceed.

To assume that every style, at every size, can yield = acceptable output on A4
paper is surely indefensible.  Rather than = constrain the user into a restrictive
set of possible font sizes, far better to require = that the user indicate,
implicitly or explicitly, the crop and text = dimensions of the target page.

At the very worst, and rather than force the user to = adopt a two-column layout
in direct contradiction to his/her implicit/explicit = instructions to the
contrary, why not generate two-up on A4 landscape as = the fall-back from a too-
small font size for A4?

        =         =         =         =         ** = Phil.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9F3BEA2C--