X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2517" "Thu" "4" "February" "93" "09:44:44" "+0200" "Alon Ziv" "s2861785@TECHST02.TECHNION.AC.IL" nil "60" "Re: document classes & numbering systems" "^Date:" nil nil "2"]) Return-Path: Received: from sc.ZIB-Berlin.DE (mailserv) by dagobert.ZIB-Berlin.DE (4.1/SMI-4.0/1.9.92 ) id AA16382; Thu, 4 Feb 93 08:45:59 +0100 Received: from vm.urz.Uni-Heidelberg.de (vm.hd-net.uni-heidelberg.de) by sc.ZIB-Berlin.DE (4.1/SMI-4.0-sc/19.6.92) id AA23103; Thu, 4 Feb 93 08:45:56 +0100 Message-Id: <9302040745.AA23103@sc.zib-berlin.dbp.de> Received: from DHDURZ1 by vm.urz.Uni-Heidelberg.de (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5333; Thu, 04 Feb 93 08:46:58 CET Received: from DHDURZ1 by DHDURZ1 (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 5079; Thu, 04 Feb 93 08:46:57 CET Received: from DHDURZ1 by DHDURZ1 (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 5077; Thu, 04 Feb 93 08:46:55 CET Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project In-Reply-To: kris%DIKU.DK@taunivm.tau.ac.il"Re: document classes & numbering systems" (Feb 3, 11:13pm) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 93 09:44:44 +0200 From: Alon Ziv Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project To: Multiple Recipients of Subject: Re: document classes & numbering systems Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 925 On Feb 3, 11:13pm, kris%DIKU.DK@taunivm.tau.ac.il wrote: } Subject: Re: document classes & numbering systems } } > 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. } [...] } this is the constraint "numeric exercises". } [...] } this is "not symbolic footnotemarkers". } [...] } ``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. } It would seem that your solution---adding ``constraints'' by the AUTHOR--- requires the author to have a quite good knowledge of what he/she is actually doing; I, for one, would find it quite cumbersome to mark all my quotations, and every place I refer to some specific numbering system---to mark this reference for later `constraining'. Moreover, I think most technical authors wouldn't know where such differences exist between styles; in short, this scheme probably demands too much knowledge to be truly applicable. } With respect to cross references, these should ideally be packaged } logically (as in the texinfo.tex format). [...] } 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 agree with this idea, at least in spirit. However, it does not solve the original problems posed---lack of memory for a bookful of labels, for instance, or the need for ``short-term'' labels (which cannot, in all probablility, be used more than a paragraph/section away). -Alon Ziv -- Internet: s2861785@t2.technion.ac.il . __ I'M A STUDENT: When I'm wrong, it's my teacher's fault _| / (when I'm right, the credit is all mine!) / | /_ Alon Ziv