Message-Id: <9302032215.AA22778@sc.zib-berlin.dbp.de>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@vm.urz.Uni-Heidelberg.de>
Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was kris@CS.CHALMERS.SE
In-Reply-To:  <9302032103.AA16626@odin.diku.dk>
Date:         Wed, 3 Feb 93 23:13:46 +0100
From: kris@DIKU.DK
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@vm.urz.Uni-Heidelberg.de>
To: Multiple Recipients of <LATEX-L@vm.urz.Uni-Heidelberg.de>
Subject:      Re: document classes & numbering systems
Status: R


> The key question is why is numbering style part of the logical
> structure?

It seems to me that there is a *general* concept missing in what users
should specify in their documents: constraints.  I think this provides
a solution to the logical vs. presentation structure dilemma.

Here are some examples that maybe stress the point further than I
should, but it is my experience as an author that the difficult thing
is to *realise* where your assumptions are in conflict with the
publisher (or other)'s requirement:

Michael Downes writes

  (a) Exercises in a textbook numbered like an enumerate environment. At
  the beginning of each exercise section the instructions say "Answers
  for odd-numbered exercises are found in Appendix~\ref{answ}." If a
  different documentstyle is substituted that changes the default
  numbering style for "list of exercises" from arabic numerals to
  alphabetic, the adjective "odd-numbered" will no longer make sense.

this is the constraint "numeric exercises".

  (b) A mathematics article is full of a particular notation that uses
  lots of asterisks. The numbering style for footnotes is arabic
  numerals. If a different documentstyle changes the numbering style to
  \fnsymbol, it might be a disservice to the reader because of confusion
  between math asterisks and footnote asterisks.

this is "not symbolic footnotemarkers".

And Don Hosek:

  There's a certain point at which we have to accept that simply
  changing the \documentstyle cannot do everything for us. It won't
  change a text which is written using the US style of
    ``this.''
  to Viking Penguin's house requirement of
    `this'.
  (note change in quotes and movement of period). Or consider the
  fact that grammatical statements which make sense with one
  citation format will be different for another.

This is exactly right...which means that either writer should write
"\quote{this}.", using the style specific quoting.  Or they add the
constraints "double inner quotes" or "single outer quotes" if the
semantics of the writing depends on one or the other.

With respect to cross references, these should ideally be packaged
logically (as in the texinfo.tex format).  I once had a problem with
having references to subsections and then the publisher did not number
subsections at all!  The point here is that something like
"\fullref{...}" (with companion "\Fullref{...}" for capitalisation)
which would generate the entire reference *including* "section",
"item", ... (and, correspondingly, "Section", "Item", ...) would have
provided what I needed.  The context information is available where it
is possible to specify \label!

  I used the passive voice for a reason: somebody should check, but
  it's not necessariily clear who. In an ideal world, the author
  prepares the manuscript using a style which is as close as is
  practical to the final style. He or she can then do the checking
  before submission. At the very least, hard references should be
  marked with comments in the input (which is what we did on the
  book I referred to in my previous message). Most changes to refs,
  though will occur in the author's work (and the particular book
  was a nightmare because the authors kept changing the text).

And since we do not live in an ideal world then LaTeX3 should
encourage paying special attention to the aspects of writing that
might need attention in the typesetting phase!

--Kristoffer
______________________________________________________________________
Kristoffer H{\o}gsbro ROSE                     Internet: kris@diku.dk
Chalmers Tekniska H{\"o}gskola, Datalogi       Voice: +46 (031)7725019
412 96 G{\"o}teborg, SWEDEN                    Fax:   +46 (031) 165655