Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([213.139.130.197]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
	 Wed, 19 Aug 2009 03:40:57 +0200
Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n7J1eu2O004645
	for <rainer.schoepf@PROTEOSYS.COM>; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 03:40:56 +0200
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 n7J1aSoO008292
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
	Wed, 19 Aug 2009 03:36:29 +0200
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 n7IM1JYK021751;
	Wed, 19 Aug 2009 03:36:19 +0200
Received: by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 15.5) with
          spool id 285022 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 19 Aug
          2009 03:36:19 +0200
Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.uni-heidelberg.de
          [129.206.100.212]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with
          ESMTP id n7J1aJTS006147 for <LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de>;
          Wed, 19 Aug 2009 03:36:19 +0200
Received: from qw-out-1920.google.com (qw-out-1920.google.com [74.125.92.149])
          by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id
          n7J1aEwe008188 for <LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de>; Wed, 19 Aug
          2009 03:36:18 +0200
Received: by qw-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 14so1152716qwa.58 for
          <LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de>; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:36:14 -0700
          (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.117.203 with SMTP id s11mr6056025qaq.332.1250645773996;
          Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:36:13 -0700 (PDT)
References: <4A8986E9.5090209@morningstar2.co.uk>
            <3F0FECF5-03FB-44C2-99D6-07C3F6987F05@gmail.com>
            <4A8B0DFC.8060001@morningstar2.co.uk>
            <4A8B1604.6050809@morningstar2.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Whitelist: <wspr81@gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by
                      listserv.uni-heidelberg.de id n7J1aJTS006148
Message-ID:  <27990a880908181836p383e40bck75fa52395dd7df5@mail.gmail.com>
Date:         Wed, 19 Aug 2009 11:06:13 +0930
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
From: Will Robertson <wspr81@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: template
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <4A8B1604.6050809@morningstar2.co.uk>
Precedence: list
List-Help: <http://listserv.uni-heidelberg.de/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=LATEX-L>,
           <mailto:LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE?body=INFO%20LATEX-L>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:LATEX-L-unsubscribe-request@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:LATEX-L-subscribe-request@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
List-Owner: <mailto:LATEX-L-request@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
List-Archive: <http://listserv.uni-heidelberg.de/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=LATEX-L>
X-ProteoSys-SPAM-Score: -6.599 () BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.65 on 213.139.130.197
Return-Path: owner-latex-l@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Aug 2009 01:40:57.0232 (UTC) FILETIME=[190E0100:01CA206E]
Status: R
X-Status: 
X-Keywords:                  
X-UID: 5943

Hi Joseph,

On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 6:28 AM, Joseph
Wright<joseph.wright@morningstar2.co.uk> wrote:
> Joseph Wright wrote:
>> 2) Exact structure for type/template boundary (I still don't get it!)
>
> A hunt through some more of the xpackages gives me an example where
> perhaps I can see this.  From xfmgalley.dtx:
>
> \DeclareTemplateType{pshape}{0}
> \DeclareTemplate{pshape}{cutout}{0}{ <keys> } { <code> }
> \DeclareInstance{pshape}{staggered}{cutout}{ <keys>}
>
> This sort-of makes sense. (There are other examples in the same place:
> perhaps it is needed after all!)

I think you've got it. From your previous examples:

Type:     Explanatory-note
Template: Footnote
Instance: Numbered-per-page

Type:     Document-part
Template: Document-division
Instance: Section

Here I think it would be more "sensical" to write (respectively)

Type: textual-note
Template: plain-footnote
Instance: <arbitrarydesignname> with parameters for numbering per page, etc.

Type: division
Template: plain-chapter
Instance: <arbitrary-design-name> with parameters for fonts used, layout, etc.

Note that different templates could be constructed such as
"chapter-like-section", "fancy-chapter", and so on which would all be
of type "division" (and hence take the same arguments) but use
different parameters.

The only reason that we "need" instances is to improve efficiency, and
the only reason that we need instance names is because we need to be
able to refer to them somehow. The instance names themselves don't
carry as much structural meaning as the template name (some instance
names might just be "standard" or "mydoc" or "default"). The level of
referring to a specific design and naming it, say "plain-chapter" is
one step higher than freezing the parameters used in that design.

Not sure if that helps to clarify things :)

Will