Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([213.139.130.197]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:32:22 +0100 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m1MBWIdl002777 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:32:20 +0100 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.94]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m1MBRTT0016091 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:27:30 +0100 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m1LN1dvY017041; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:27:15 +0100 Received: by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 15.5) with spool id 208497 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:27:15 +0100 Received: from relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (relay2.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.210.211]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m1MBRFZF030445 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:27:15 +0100 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.188]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m1MBMsBC021366 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:22:58 +0100 Received: from morse.mittelbach-online.de (p4FD45018.dip.t-dialin.net [79.212.80.24]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrelayeu6) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0ML29c-1JSW3a0Ahk-0006bD; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:27:10 +0100 Received: by morse.mittelbach-online.de (Postfix, from userid 501) id 63FE36215D; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:27:07 +0100 (CET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <18314.23356.700357.114633@morse.mittelbach-online.de> <47BE9DF4.5080503@gmx.net> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 21.3.1 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/E5Lgts5LgOQSKW+TAps0TG8dhkk4ySTsg0X8 fMILe6jJb9/riezJr63Rx9blsqtllVCkX3kFjkIZ6Q0X3KvCHt 6PyNxbYi/MWo1txdOQ9EUaCiUQVAT2B X-Spam-Whitelist-Provider: Message-ID: <18366.45451.319285.791886@morse.mittelbach-online.de> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:27:07 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Frank Mittelbach Subject: Re: Internal and external page setup control To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE In-Reply-To: <47BE9DF4.5080503@gmx.net> Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-ProteoSys-SPAM-Score: -102.464 () BAYES_00,FORGED_RCVD_HELO,USER_IN_WHITELIST X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 213.139.130.197 Return-Path: owner-latex-l@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Feb 2008 11:32:22.0542 (UTC) FILETIME=[973A9AE0:01C87546] Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 5171 as Tobias read this list through gmane I have forwarded his comments frank Tobias Schlemmer writes: > > > > Hi, > > Though I don't have the right to post to the LaTeX3 mailing list I > sometimes read it. I write my comments to you. Feel free to post or to > discard them. > > Frank Mittelbach schrieb: > > > There is another snag with the above algorithm: after having changed to a new > > page setup the galley space in the new setup might have changed (if page setup > > means more than just float areas, e.g., the vertical size of the columns might > > differ or the number of columns on the page might differ). Thus that means > > that after the second step the galley size might be smaller or larger thus the > > directive might already got pushed out (which would be bad since it means we > > have two instable states) or (nearly equally bad) we get more space in the > > galley and as a result hit a later directive requiring a different page > > setup. > > > > So what would be the alternatives? Anybody any good suggestions? Here is one: > > > > * Use the directives to always specify what should happen on the next not > > on the current page. This way we could simply wait until we typeset the > > final page and pick up the directives in the text at that point thus > > knowing exactly what should happen with the next page. > > > > One problem that I see with this one is that one isn't used to it, > > e.g. instead of \chapter{foo} =\thispagestyle{empty}= one would now have to > > say something like \nextpagestyle{empty} =\chapter{foo}=. Not being used to > > isn't in itself a problem (though it might be one for adoption by the > > users). But this also means that such directives can't be easily issues from > > within other commands, since in such a case the area of influence is the page > > on which the current point will finally end up and not the page after > > thereafter. Now with a command that itself starts a new page the command can > > push out the directive, then starts the new page, but if the command doesn't > > start a new page then directives can't be used. > > > > Now I don't know how much of a problem this is (if any) but it is something > > that needs to be considered as it would be a restriction if this approach is > > used. > > > > Any other suggestions how one could conceptually handle page control? > > I didn't understand everything very well, so maybe my thoughts have been > posted already. > > I think many decitions can be performed by the author. He could decide > if he likes to have a stable layout change on the next page or on the > current page if applicable. I'd like to have four commands: > > \pagestyle \thispagestyle > \fromnextpagestyle \nextpagestyle > > The first row acts on the page where the directive is given and the > other two on the next page. The first column acts on the following pages > too while the other only describe the style for one page. > > I think in flip flop situations the pagestyle command must be moved > elsewhere for a proper layout. But this must be done by the author. So > I'd expect LaTeX to insert a page break immediately before \pagestyle of > \thispagestyle if it can't find a suitable solution. > > I'd expect in all situations a normal float placement, as it would have > been without a change. If there are more than one pagestyle commands > given on one page, then I'd expect, that they are all tried and the best > Solution will be performed. This would introduce some weighting > mechanism between more floats, more text, least lost space at the end of > the page if a pagebreak follows and first/last prefered. This weighting > should be user configurable. I think of measuring the badnesses of the > criteria serparately and performing a dot product with the (user given) > weighting vector. > > Tobias >