Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([213.139.130.197]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sat, 22 Aug 2009 18:04:13 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n7MG4CPE001893 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 18:04:12 +0200 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.94]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n7MG25LP032722 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 22 Aug 2009 18:02:06 +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 n7MCXLnO029540; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 18:02:05 +0200 Received: by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 15.5) with spool id 287564 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 18:02:05 +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 n7MG25NM009106 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 18:02:05 +0200 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.17.8]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n7MG1xWw009256 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 18:02:03 +0200 Received: from morse.mittelbach-online.de (p54A83E1C.dip.t-dialin.net [84.168.62.28]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrbap0) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MKsym-1Met2V0Dzi-000lhz; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 18:01:59 +0200 Received: by morse.mittelbach-online.de (Postfix, from userid 501) id 496236FA65; Sat, 22 Aug 2009 18:01:56 +0200 (CEST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <874332F9-007B-4945-87D5-48B28BBC11CC@gmail.com> <4A8E304C.4050208@morningstar2.co.uk> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 21.3.1 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+zRtufa8xUay1ziSVCoUMnBZa26gKg0A7d3iJ FpPausaAqcQIZPOAcdjnxVAtAPgGdB9IPWKnaZE2iJOwWqtRED UF9VHpmkxer3Q2qgjBHgg== X-Spam-Whitelist-Provider: Message-ID: <19088.5748.266571.537492@morse.mittelbach-online.de> Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 18:01:56 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Frank Mittelbach Subject: Re: template customising To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE In-Reply-To: <4A8E304C.4050208@morningstar2.co.uk> Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-ProteoSys-SPAM-Score: -106.599 () BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,USER_IN_WHITELIST X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.65 on 213.139.130.197 Return-Path: owner-latex-l@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Aug 2009 16:04:13.0060 (UTC) FILETIME=[31036440:01CA2342] Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 5977 Joseph Wright writes: > I can see your argument for creating instances with only minor > adjustments from existing ones ("All I want to do is change length a to > length b, leaving everything else alone."). My feeling is that the idea > is that document classes should be much clearer on the settings they > use, so the cost of copying a template and altering only a few lines is > worth it in clarity of what is going on. The danger of allowing > something like \EditInstance is that you can easily get back to ad hoc > changes here and there with no clear separation of design and document > code. that is a danger and it is something that needs to put into the equation when we decide whether or not to offer such an interface for small design adjustments. My personal feeling (at the meoment) is that LaTeX in the past did fairly well by offering a balance with separating design and content, ie always allowing overwrite possibilities if needed even in mid-document if desperately wanted. As a result such documents meant hand-tuning and they didn't work if one changed the design overall, but on the other hand this is one reason why you get higher quality in the final product compared to documents that have been 100% processed by simply applying a style from the outside. In other words I don't think that it would be really bad to offer it, eventually. frank