Message-Id: <9302032151.AA22757@sc.zib-berlin.dbp.de>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@vm.urz.Uni-Heidelberg.de>
Date:         Wed, 3 Feb 93 22:52:09 CET
From: Don Hosek <DHOSEK@HMCVAX.CLAREMONT.EDU>
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


-But here's a
-couple of examples to indicate what I had in mind.

-(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.

-(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.

-All the vowel items in the above list may be regarded as hypothetical.

They're compelling, but I don't see any reason to really consider
these to be items which _demand_ a new class of document style.
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. The kind of
``plug-and-play'' which we'd like to have is just not possible,
but I think the correct response is not to say that we will
multiply the numbers of document classes, but rather to say that
we will accept some limitations to what is possible.

-> Any hard-coded references to numbers are asking for
-> trouble regardless of style changes

-I certainly agree with that; but the mail from Michael Barr and Frank
-Poppe indicates that there are practical problems which perhaps should
-be taken into consideration for LaTeX3 development, to see if
-something can be found to make users' life easier.

Agreed. If I only had a penny for each \label...

-Enforcing a
-standard numbering system for standard elements of a given document
-class (and thus requiring that numbering variations be explicitly
-specified in the individual documents) might be one way, though my
-intent was more to provoke discussion than to claim that that is the
-best solution.


-> -If so, then
-> -documents of the same class are interchangeable only if:

-> -(1) All documentstyles in a given class conform to a single numbering
-> -system for all predefined environments, sectioning commands, and other
-> -numbered elements.

-> Absolutely untenable. You'll have a near-infinite number of book
-> sub-classes, to say the least.

-[Subclasses weren't what I was arguing for here, (1) was intended only
-to be taken together with (2).]

Perhaps I misunderstand?

-> -(2) Any numbering changes are done in the individual documents.

-> To be discouraged at best. Numbering is to be handled by the
-> document style. The only excuse for changing it is when using a
-> generic document style.

-Why? You didn't explain the reasons.

The reason is that numbering is part of the style specification.
The only exceptions I have seen involved document style specs
which didn't have the full panorama of LaTeX structures
specified. Actually I suppose the other exception would be
enunciations (theorem, etc.) but here it's not what sort of
numbers are to be used but...

-> Hard references should be checked in any event because of
-> problems with text being edited and numbers changing. See above.

-Yes and no. At the point when an electronic document is turned over to
-a publisher, the publisher usually prefers to minimize changes, thus
-the chance of numbers changing is quite small. (Except for page refs,
-but hard-coding of page refs is rarer than hard-coding of item refs,
-and more obviously counterproductive.)

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).

-dh