Mime-Version: |
1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3) |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:55:13 +0930 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On 20/08/2009, at 2:32 AM, Joseph Wright wrote:
> Just a first thought, based on a better understanding of the
> concept. As
> you say, this might not be the best idea in the end. I will probably
> write myself some (private) notes on the structure now I have a better
> picture of how things work, and see if anything else strikes me.
I think I see where my model of what's going on (particularly
regarding collections) was slightly off-kilter. I agree we should
delay discussing the mechanics (names, order of the args) until after
we're solid on the fundamentals.
I've now got a new question. Following Joseph's examples, we might
have something like \chapter which uses an instance 'chapter' of type
'sectioning'.
What should be done at the document design level to customise the look
of the chapter headings? I don't think we want to have to redefine
\chapter, so there are two options:
1. create a fresh instance called 'chapter' with the desired parameters,
2. "edit" the current 'chapter' instance.
The first option is what is necessary in, say, titlesec. I've got to
admit it's not my favourite, because it requires you to possibly set
or re-set a bunch of parameters that you were already happy with. (And
you also have to know the name of the template it was produced with.)
Let's say then that I'd like to be able to edit the instance
'chapter'; is there any way to be able to do this?
I imagine markup like
\EditInstance{sectioning}{chapter}% template is implicit!
{ ...keyvals... }
but I don't know if my desire for this construct illustrates a
misunderstanding of mine of the system.
Will
P.S. I guess that something like the above \EditInstance would
require a saved keyval list for the parameters used to generate the
instance; however, I don't think that's an unacceptable use of memory.
|
|
|