Message-Id: <199401270935.AA00153@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
Date:         Thu, 27 Jan 1994 09:30:33 LCL
From: Mike Piff <M.Piff@sheffield.ac.uk>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Mapping a structure onto a design
Status: R

%>Charles Wells writes:
%> > David Rhead's suggestion that we separate structure and design
%> > and have commands such as
%> >
%> >       \mapping{structure}{design}
%> > [...]
%> > in Latex3 strikes me as exactly the right thing to do.  However,
%> > one problem that someone else in this discussion mentioned will
%> > still occur:  What happens if you fine-tune the article for the
%> > A4 style if someone else maps the article structure
%> > to the US default in printing out a copy that was emailed or
%> > retrieved by FTP.  One kind of fine-tuning is to insert a
%> > pagebreak at a certain spot.  That could cause a page with only
%> > a few lines in another design.
%>

Putting \pagebreak, \newpage, \clearpage, etc in the body of the document is
bad practice anyway.  The user should define his own command to do the
\pagebreak, eg, \mypagebreak, in the preamble, so that it is easily
modifiable by another user. That is the point of separating form from
content. Another user can make \mypagebreak=\relax, \par or whatever.

However, even the best of us don't seem to have managed this one...:-)

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% Dr M J Piff, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of %%
%% Sheffield, UK.                    e-mail: M.Piff@sheffield.ac.uk %%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%