Message-Id: <199401281510.AA14129@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
In-Reply-To:  <01H87LIL3DOY9OCZGK@MATH.AMS.ORG>
Date:         Fri, 28 Jan 1994 10:02:24 -0500
From: bbeeton <BNB@MATH.AMS.ORG>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: form and content
Status: R

in this discussion of whether any of the built-in latex content-tagging
commands should or should not be used, in favor of only tags defined
in the preamble of a given paper, i submit that this ignores the
attempts of some of us to present a solid, logical user interface
that essentially omits the ad hoc use of {\bf ...} et al.  while i
think it's a good idea to suggest that a user create new definitions
for, e.g. \Emphasis{\em ...}, \Booktitle{\it ...}, and the like (if
they're not already available), depending on what actually appears
in the document, i think that many really common entities should be
able to be provided and the strong suggestion that the given tagging
scheme be used.

that's not to say that
   \begin{section}[sectiontitle]["short" section title]
   ...
   \end{section}
or something of that sort doesn't make more sense -- it does.
but please don't throw away the possibility of using a predefined
scheme in a real production environment.  to suggest that each
user should "roll his own" would make that very difficult and
costly.
                                                -- bb