> James wrote:
> > > my questions to this list would be now:
> > >
> > > c) can you define the layout you are looking for?
> > > if not:
> > > - are there keys missing for the current templates?
> > > - are there other templates missing that do radically different things?
> > > - are the keys perhaps the wrong ones?
> > One more key : number-indent =l [0pt] \parindent
> > Perhaps it should be `first-line-indent'. Used below.
> yes, probably. and probably all keys should be a little bit more
> uniform in names and bahviour, eg if we have right-margin-sep why
> don't we have left-margin-sep?
This is connected to what I said about fiddly. The choice of names for
labels needs to be well though out. The class designer should not need
to look at the template source to work out what effects their keyvalues
One thing the which the current template doesn't provide is section
numbers not typeset in a box. I need this for the toc of `A users guide
to spectral sequences' (an early masterpiece of the plain TeXnician's
art) How should this best be done? A new key (boxed-number =b) would
seem to be the best way.
> > It's straightforward but fiddley,
> is it? if so why? because things could be improved or because the
> situation is complex and nothing could be done about it?
It's mainly the complexity of the situation. Key with orthoganal
effects are good. Overloaded keys are bad. The problem with boxed-number
is that its far from independent of number-width. But an alternative of
say making the template recognize number-width=0 as meaning `don't set
this in a box' overloads the number-width key, which I think is worse.
Perhaps there are other ways.
> - do you have a good suggestion for the name of the above template
mmmm maybe a `launcher' template...