MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID:  <14384.19380.269695.118363@Wincenty.nowhere.edu.pl>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Date:         Mon, 15 Nov 1999 19:06:44 +0100
From: Marcin Wolinski <wolinski@MIMUW.EDU.PL>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Subject:      various comments on templates
Status: R

Hello Frank and all,

I've just read all the templates related mail from the last month, and
I'd like to make some comments.  Sorry for being so late.


As for the ``sequence of footnotes'' issue:
-------------------------------------------
If you seriously think of supporting sequences of footnotes (which I
btw find a very annoying habit) you should provide a template type for
a sequence of note marks and not for a single mark.  If sequences are
allowed, single footnote mark is not a self-contained entity.
Consider e.g. a template that puts a frame around the footnote
mark(s).  Now to put the frame around 1,2 you have to have it in hand
as a whole.


Section heads
-------------
The template type seems all right (at least I agree with all you've
said), but I think the document syntax is still a problem.

According to my experience the need for short version of the title for
running head is common.  On the other hand I have never typeset any
document with titles in the toc different than in the text.  With the
syntax you proposed, to specify short text for the running head only
one has to repeat the long title as toc text (or use hacks with
\NoValue).  If two optional parameters were exchanged I would be
perfectly happy.  But then probably some application with thousands of
sections with alternative toc entries and no running head would
emerge. :-)


Expansion
---------
A very inspiring mail of M.J. Downes about avoiding expansion of
user-supplied text didn't seem to cause any response.  Since I always
felt that avoiding expansion is the right way to go, I'd like to ask
what is the opinion of The LaTeX Team in that matter.  This would be
too much of a change for LaTeX 2e, but in the LaTeX 3 context the idea
seems perfectly feasible.


----------
Shouldn't \DelayedEvaluation be rather named \DelayEvaluation or
\EvalOnUse (I mean in a more procedural spirit)?


With best
Marcin