Received: via tmail-4.1(11) (invoked by user schoepf) for schoepf; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 21:24:41 +0100 (MET) Received: from mailgate2.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (mailgate2.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.8.57]) by mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA08340 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 21:24:40 +0100 (MET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF69CD.B4AB4A80" Received: from mail.listserv.gmd.de (mail.listserv.gmd.de [192.88.97.5]) by mailgate2.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA01228 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 21:24:39 +0100 (MET) Received: from mail.listserv.gmd.de (192.88.97.5) by mail.listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <0.837880B6@mail.listserv.gmd.de>; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 21:24:24 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 449128 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 21:23:07 +0100 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.212]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA19928 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 21:20:28 +0100 (MET) Received: from downtown.oche.de (downtown.oche.de [194.94.253.3]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA27403 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 21:20:25 +0100 (MET) Received: from corona.oche.de (uucp@localhost) by downtown.oche.de (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with UUCP id VAA13604 for URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE!LATEX-L; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 21:20:07 +0100 Received: by corona.oche.de (wUUCP 1.10) id <1kw0@corona.oche.de>; Fri, 28 Jan 00 20:55:44 CET Return-Path: X-Mailer: AmiGate 1.6 (13.11.95) x-vm-v5-data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]["2159" "Fri" "28" "January" "2000" "18:53:55" "CET" "Achim Blumensath" "blume@CORONA.OCHE.DE" nil "42" "Re: templates for galley (paragraph) formatting" "^Date:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil]nil) Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: templates for galley (paragraph) formatting Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 19:53:55 +0100 Message-ID: <3e3782b0@corona.oche.de> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Achim Blumensath" Sender: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" To: "Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L" Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 3519 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF69CD.B4AB4A80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Frank Mittelbach wrote: > Achim writes: > > > o hyphenation template. This template should IMHO be dropped. The > > only important parameters it sets are (ex)hyphenpenalty which can > > be moved to the linebreak template. > > I agree that the (ex)hyphenpenalty should perhaps be moved to the > linebreak template as they essentially are parameters that guide the > linebreaking. On the other hand Rune Kleveland made the correct remark > that there are extensions to TeX that take the hyphenation methods > further and do perhaps warrant to keep those parameters separate for > easier replacement. After some thought I think it would be best if one provides a = hyphenation template for the case that a future version of TeX uses more parameters. But instead of using these templates directly one should IMHO add a parameter to the linebreak template specifying which instance of the hyphenation template is used. One could define, say, four instances: "disabled", "discouraged", "enabled", and "encouraged". > However, whether the template should be fully abandomed seems to me a > different question: i guess one has to ask whether = allowing/disallowing > hyphenation is a layout design question in its own right. That is, is = it > likely that one wants to change the galley state in this respect = without > changing other aspects of the galley? If this is the case then > separating it out makes some sense since otherwise one has to provide > a lot of duplicate template instances which only differ in that = aspect. > > I'm not sure what the answer is. Perhaps there is no need for a > separation in the end. I guess hyphenation and other line-breaking parameters will normally be set simultaneously. Achim ________________________________________________________________________ _ | \_____/ = | // Achim Blumensath | \ _ \O/ \___/\ = | // blume@corona.oche.de |-< /_\ =3Do=3D \ = /\ \| \X/ (p^2 - m^2)\psi =3D 0 |_/ \_ /"\ = o----| ____________________________________________________________________\___|= ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF69CD.B4AB4A80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: templates for galley (paragraph) formatting

Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> Achim writes:
>
>  > o hyphenation template. This template = should IMHO be dropped. The
>  >   only important parameters = it sets are (ex)hyphenpenalty which can
>  >   be moved to the linebreak = template.
>
> I agree that the (ex)hyphenpenalty should = perhaps be moved to the
> linebreak template as they essentially are = parameters that guide the
> linebreaking. On the other hand Rune Kleveland = made the correct remark
> that there are extensions to TeX that take the = hyphenation methods
> further and do perhaps warrant to keep those = parameters separate for
> easier replacement.

After some thought I think it would be best if one = provides a hyphenation
template for the case that a future version of TeX = uses more parameters.
But instead of using these templates directly one = should IMHO add a
parameter to the linebreak template specifying which = instance of the
hyphenation template is used. One could define, say, = four instances:
"disabled", "discouraged", = "enabled", and "encouraged".

> However, whether the template should be fully = abandomed seems to me a
> different question: i guess one has to ask = whether allowing/disallowing
> hyphenation is a layout design question in its = own right. That is, is it
> likely that one wants to change the galley state = in this respect without
> changing other aspects of the galley? If this is = the case then
> separating it out makes some sense since = otherwise one has to provide
> a lot of duplicate template instances which only = differ in that aspect.
>
> I'm not sure what the answer is. Perhaps there = is no need for a
> separation in the end.

I guess hyphenation and other line-breaking parameters = will normally
be set simultaneously.

Achim
________________________________________________________________= ________
          &nbs= p;            = ;         = _            =             &= nbsp;    | \_____/ |
    //  Achim = Blumensath       | \  = _            =             \O/ = \___/\ |
   //   = blume@corona.oche.de   |-< = /_\           &nbs= p;           = =3Do=3D  \ /\ \|
 \X/    (p^2 - m^2)\psi =3D = 0    |_/ = \_            = ;            = /"\   o----|
________________________________________________________________= ____\___|

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF69CD.B4AB4A80--