Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.A2CDC6FC@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:44:35 +0100 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A2CDC6FC" 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} Size options, metanotions, etc. Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1992 23:26:07 +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: 631 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A2CDC6FC Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable There may actually be a lot in common between what Phil Taylor suggested = in his mail of 19th March and the suggestions I floated on 8th/19th March. Phil suggests factoring out the meta-notions of book, article, thesis, etc. ... factoring out the meta-ness This may be much the same as I was suggesting about be specific about the structures supported ... look critically at BK-1, ART-1 and SER-1 ... amendments ... bk-L, art-L and ser-L ... I guess that bk-L, art-L (if used) might be called "meta-notions of = book, article" (and bk-L might define the "meta-notion of a thesis" too, if = other places follow Oxford and ask for theses to look like "a well-designed book"). Thought would be needed about what meta-notions/structures it = is feasible to attempt to support in the time available (e.g., I think that ISO standards and "legal articles" may have structures that differ from "article in scientific/technical/medical journal"). I'd agree that "modularity is a good thing", which may be what Phil is saying in his paragraph about "a layered product". As regards the 3 categories I suggested, well ... category 3 would be "post LaTeX3-project stuff that people contribute to archives (e.g. [tex-archive.latex.styles.contrib] at Aston)", which I guess people will do anyway . which just leaves my category 1 ("a mapping of the structures onto A4-ish paper") which may not be far off Phil's "canonical specific style file", and category 2 ("representative examples that show how to produce real-world documents") which may not be far off Phil's "at least one instance of a design-specific variant". People closer to what the modules/layers might have to be may be better able to comment on how to organise things. I hope that they can avoid the LaTeX 2.09 business whereby * \documentstyle[Npt]{book} for N =3D 10, 11, 12 (although modular/layered) gives nothing that can actually be used for publishing a real book (N =3D 10 no crop marks; N =3D 11, 12 too = big) * \documentstyle[Npt]{report} for N =3D 10, 11, 12 gives perhaps one design (N =3D 12) that can be used for a real report (N =3D10 and = 11 have margins that are too big for A4, and no crop marks if they're = intended for smaller-than-A4) * \documentstyle[Npt]{article} for N =3D 10, 11, 12 doesn't give 3 = useful designs (e.g., it doesn't give one for author to use while = re-drafting on a laserprinter, and 2 for journals to use while publishing). Thus 2.09 gives 9 combinations of book/report/article with Npt, but I'm = not sure that the particular 9 designs give appreciably more functionality = than 3 designs ("one preprint style for each structure") would have given. Hence, for example, if the LaTeX 3 "initial distribution" had 9 = associated "style files" or "combinations of layers" or "mappings of structures = onto designs", I'd hope that we'd somehow get 3 "mappings of different structures onto laserprinter paper for re-drafting" plus 6 designs that illustrate how some of the variety of other features required "in the = real publishing world" can be achieved. I'd also hope that an "initial distribution" could make clear what structures/meta-notions are = supported, so that end-users know when they can/cannot change to "same structure, different design" hackers know when they've got to define a "structure that isn't one supported by the standard distribution" (which may be necessary if "legal articles" or "ISO standards documents" aren't among the structures/metanotions supported in the standard distribution). David Rhead JANET: d.rhead@uk.ac.nottingham.ccc.vme ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A2CDC6FC Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable {1} Size options, metanotions, etc.

There may actually be a lot in common between what = Phil Taylor suggested in
his mail of 19th March and the suggestions I floated = on 8th/19th March.

Phil suggests
     factoring out the = meta-notions of book, article, thesis, etc.  ...
     factoring out the = meta-ness
This may be much the same as I was suggesting = about
     be specific about the = structures supported ...
     look critically at BK-1, = ART-1 and SER-1 ... amendments ...
     bk-L, art-L and ser-L = ...
I guess that bk-L, art-L (if used) might be called = "meta-notions of book,
article" (and bk-L might define the = "meta-notion of a thesis" too, if other
places follow Oxford and ask for theses to look like = "a well-designed
book").  Thought would be needed about what = meta-notions/structures it is
feasible to attempt to support in the time available = (e.g., I think that
ISO standards and "legal articles" may have = structures that differ from
"article in scientific/technical/medical = journal").

I'd agree that "modularity is a good thing", = which may be what Phil is
saying in his paragraph about "a layered = product".

As regards the 3 categories I suggested, well = ...
   category 3 would be "post = LaTeX3-project stuff that people contribute
   to archives (e.g.  = [tex-archive.latex.styles.contrib] at Aston)",
   which I guess people will do = anyway
.  which just leaves my category 1 ("a = mapping of the structures onto
A4-ish paper") which may not be far off Phil's = "canonical specific style
file", and category 2 ("representative = examples that show how to produce
real-world documents") which may not be far off = Phil's "at least one
instance of a design-specific variant".

People closer to what the modules/layers might have to = be may be better
able to comment on how to organise things.  I = hope that they can avoid
the LaTeX 2.09 business whereby
*    \documentstyle[Npt]{book} for N = =3D 10, 11, 12 (although
     modular/layered) gives = nothing that can actually be used for
     publishing a real book (N = =3D 10 no crop marks; N =3D 11, 12 too big)
*    \documentstyle[Npt]{report} for N = =3D 10, 11, 12 gives perhaps one
     design (N =3D 12) that can = be used for a real report (N =3D10 and 11 have
     margins that are too big for = A4, and no crop marks if they're intended
     for smaller-than-A4)
*    \documentstyle[Npt]{article} for = N =3D 10, 11, 12 doesn't give 3 useful
     designs (e.g., it doesn't = give one for author to use while re-drafting
     on a laserprinter, and 2 for = journals to use while publishing).
Thus 2.09 gives 9 combinations of book/report/article = with Npt, but I'm not
sure that the particular 9 designs give appreciably = more functionality than
3 designs ("one preprint style for each = structure") would have given.
Hence, for example, if the LaTeX 3 "initial = distribution" had 9 associated
"style files" or "combinations of = layers" or "mappings of structures onto
designs", I'd hope that we'd somehow get 3 = "mappings of different
structures onto laserprinter paper for = re-drafting" plus 6 designs that
illustrate how some of the variety of other features = required "in the real
publishing world" can be achieved.  I'd = also hope that an "initial
distribution" could make clear what = structures/meta-notions are supported,
so that end-users know when they can/cannot change to = "same structure,
    different design"
hackers know when they've got to define a = "structure that isn't one
    supported by the standard = distribution" (which may be necessary
    if "legal articles" or = "ISO standards documents" aren't among the
    structures/metanotions supported = in the standard distribution).


David Rhead
JANET: d.rhead@uk.ac.nottingham.ccc.vme

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A2CDC6FC--