References: <199911151939.UAA11769@relay.uni-heidelberg.de>
Message-ID:  <199911162049.VAA00527@istrati.zdv.uni-mainz.de>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
In-Reply-To:  <199911151939.UAA11769@relay.uni-heidelberg.de>
Date:         Tue, 16 Nov 1999 21:49:00 +0100
From: Frank Mittelbach <frank.mittelbach@LATEX-PROJECT.ORG>
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:      Re: xcontents
Status: R

Javier wrote:

 > >    - are there other templates missing that do radically different things?
 >
 > Yes. Entries grouped in a single paragraph. For instance:
 >
 > 1) First section, 3. 2) Second section, 5. 3) Third section, 7. 4)...

quite right, i have a couple of layouts for tocs that do use those and have
halfway tried my hands on that already (but not finished)

 > It so happens that I'm working in a new release of a package for
 > formatting of toc entries which already provides such a kind of
 > indexes in the currently available version. However, adapting

may i (we have a look) at the 2e version of this package? i don't mind it
being in a non-distributable/working state as long as the underlying ideas can
be looked at without too much trouble

nevertheless i'm eager to see you trying to produce a template or two for it
since only this way we can see where the template concept needs corrections

 > it to the suggested templates is turning out to be more difficult
 > as I expected because most of things are handled in a quite
 > different way. The same applies to partial tocs. However,

can you try to explain why or how partial tocs are a problem or handled quite
differently in your approach? (not that they are yet really handled in
xcontents at all

 > I will persist (I have got no much time, I'm afraid), and if I get
 > some result I will send to this list.

great

frank