User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <874332F9-007B-4945-87D5-48B28BBC11CC@gmail.com>           
            <4A8E304C.4050208@morningstar2.co.uk>
            <19088.5748.266571.537492@morse.mittelbach-online.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID:  <4A903A06.9020409@morningstar2.co.uk>
Date:         Sat, 22 Aug 2009 19:33:42 +0100
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: Joseph Wright <joseph.wright@MORNINGSTAR2.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: template customising
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <19088.5748.266571.537492@morse.mittelbach-online.de>
Precedence: list
Status: R

Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> 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

Fair argument. Either we allow for hand-tuning and minor variations at
the outset, or they happen anyway in a more ad hoc way. This plus your
previous mail seem like pretty positive feedback to implement
\EditInstance (or whatever name seems best) when enough is resolved to
actually look at coding things.
-- 
Joseph Wright