Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-ID:  <v02130501afd697e37f39@[130.237.37.65]>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Date:         Wed, 25 Jun 1997 11:59:07 +0200
From: Hans Aberg <haberg@MATEMATIK.SU.SE>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L
              <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Subject:      Modules (Was: Availability of Class files)
Status: R

Marcel Oliver <moliver@MATH.UCI.EDU> wrote:

>If you look at these classes, they point to some problem which will
>grow in the future: The standard LaTeX classes have a rather
>restricted set of front matter commands.  So every publisher is
>extending them in mutually incompatible ways.
>
>The AMS classes have reversed the order of abstract and \maketitle
>with good reason, I believe, and there is a case that this should be
>the default behaviour for all classes.
...
>In any case, there is definitely the need for a standard.  I would
>like to be able to just change the document class to reformat my
>documents in a different style without having to do trivial but
>annoying changes to the front matter.  Also, when I start writing an
>article, I don't necessarily know where it will be published.  Thus it
>is practically useful to have a front matter standard that all
>publishers could agree to and comply with.

  Such things could be achieved by a suitable form of object orientation,
or developing modules, which spread out the code horizontally rather than
vertically.

  Hans Aberg