X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2584" "Mon" "31" "January" "1994" "15:04:58" "CST" "Alex Stark" "jas1@eng.cam.ac.uk" "<199401311515.AA14197@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de>" "105" "Re: form and content" "^Date:" nil nil "1" "1994013121:04:58" "form and content" nil nil]) Return-Path: Received: from sc.ZIB-Berlin.DE (mailserv) by dagobert.ZIB-Berlin.DE (4.1/SMI-4.0/24.6.93) id AA21033; Mon, 31 Jan 94 16:16:31 +0100 Received: from mail.cs.tu-berlin.de by sc.ZIB-Berlin.DE (4.1/SMI-4.0-sc/03.06.93) id AA03502; Mon, 31 Jan 94 16:15:08 +0100 Received: from tubvm.cs.tu-berlin.de by mail.cs.tu-berlin.de with SMTP id AA14197 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4(mail.m4[1.12]) for <@MAIL.CS.TU-BERLIN.DE:Schoepf@SC.ZIB-BERLIN.DE>); Mon, 31 Jan 1994 16:15:05 +0100 Message-Id: <199401311515.AA14197@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 7685; Mon, 31 Jan 94 16:15:02 +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 7684; Mon, 31 Jan 1994 16:15:01 +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 8961; Mon, 31 Jan 1994 16:14:32 +0000 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Date: Mon, 31 Jan 1994 15:04:58 CST From: Alex Stark Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Subject: Re: form and content Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 1364 In Message Mon, 31 Jan 1994 13:26:22 LCL, Mike Piff writes: >%> [ Question about folding editors, and spell or grammar checkers.] >%> > >What would happen to the following? >Mike > >\documentstyle[12pt]{article} > >\begin{document} >\begin{section}{Sec} >\begin{enumerate} > \begin{item} > ggg > \end{item} >\end{enumerate} >\end{section} >\end{document} > \documentstyle[12pt]{article} *** PREAMBLE *** \begin{document} *** ETC *** \begin{section}{Sec} *** TEXT1 *** \begin{enumerate} \begin{item} ggg \end{item} \end{enumerate} \end{section} \begin{section} *** TEXT2 *** \begin{subsection} *** TEXT3 *** \end{subsection} \end{section} \end{document} What happens is that emacs searches for a certain pattern of characters to start a new heading. Each heading is assigned a level. The \end{} commands would be ignored. So, after displaying the outline tree, one gets: \documentstyle[12pt]{article} ... \begin{document} ... \begin{section}{Sec} ... \begin{section} ... \begin{subsection} ... \end{document} After opening the subsection this becomes, \documentstyle[12pt]{article} ... \begin{document} ... \begin{section}{Sec} ... \begin{section} ... \begin{subsection} *** TEXT3 *** \end{subsection} \end{section} \end{document} Thus you can separately open up the preamble or any section. The package would be redesigned if the \begin{section}...\end{section} form became standard. If a standard set of definitions were devised for document information, as suggested on the list, then this could be exploited. I refer to the idea of agreeing a common set of items required for journal styles. For example, the editor might recognize groups of commands for author information, the abstract, and so on. Emacs also has, in the case of comments in programs, a system of opening up a special window for editing items. When you exit, the text is inserted in correct format in the main window. I don't mean to suggest that LaTeX 3 should be designed around editors, rather than to point out that standardization of commands can have an impact on the editing and checking process. Alex. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- J. Alex Stark Signal Processing and Communications Laboratory Department of Engineering email: jas1@uk.ac.cam.eng University of Cambridge Tel: [+44]223 3 32767 Trumpington Street Fax: [+44]223 3 32662 Cambridge, CB2 1PZ, UK