X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1169" "Thu" "27" "January" "1994" "21:41:05" "+0100" "Frank Mittelbach" "MITTELBACH@mzdmza.zdv.uni-mainz.de" "<199401272047.AA19736@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de>" "29" "Re: article.STYLE" "^Date:" nil nil "1" "1994012720:41:05" "article.STYLE" (number " " mark " Frank Mittelbach Jan 27 29/1169 " thread-indent "\"Re: article.STYLE\"\n") nil]) Return-Path: Received: from sc.ZIB-Berlin.DE (mailserv) by dagobert.ZIB-Berlin.DE (4.1/SMI-4.0/24.6.93) id AA12869; Thu, 27 Jan 94 21:47:16 +0100 Received: from mail.cs.tu-berlin.de by sc.ZIB-Berlin.DE (4.1/SMI-4.0-sc/03.06.93) id AA07149; Thu, 27 Jan 94 21:47:07 +0100 Received: from tubvm.cs.tu-berlin.de by mail.cs.tu-berlin.de with SMTP id AA19736 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4(mail.m4[1.12]) for <@MAIL.CS.TU-BERLIN.DE:Schoepf@SC.ZIB-BERLIN.DE>); Thu, 27 Jan 1994 21:47:05 +0100 Message-Id: <199401272047.AA19736@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de> Received: from TUBVM.CS.TU-BERLIN.DE by tubvm.cs.tu-berlin.de (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5665; Thu, 27 Jan 94 21:47:06 +0200 Received: from VM.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (NJE origin MAILER@DHDURZ1) by TUBVM.CS.TU-BERLIN.DE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5664; Thu, 27 Jan 1994 21:47:06 +0200 Received: from VM.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (NJE origin LISTSERV@DHDURZ1) by VM.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0039; Thu, 27 Jan 1994 21:46:43 +0000 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Date: Thu, 27 Jan 1994 21:41:05 +0100 From: Frank Mittelbach Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Subject: Re: article.STYLE Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 1325 > Subj: article."style" > Looking into the code for article.cls, it seems that the principle that > for efficient reading there should be approximately 65 characters on a line > has been built in. no it hasn't actually; about 80 at the moment. (which is too wide because it---beside typographic reason--kills marginals) > I grant you that this is an accepted principle of book design, though > my feeling is that when technical material dominates text the considerations > change. However we seem to have a consensus that any claim that the > standard LaTeX styles are good design is simply laughable. > This is one of many differences between compatibility and native mode > which will upset users and make them less likely to change over. > (I have only been able to run LaTeX2e in compatibility mode because > there is too wide a gulf between native mode and existing macro packages.) Actually i don't understand the above remark. what is the difference between compatibility and native mode you are talking about? the current defaults in native mode are about 30-50pt wider than the 209 styles. what are the other differences you are talking about? Frank