Joseph Wright wrote:
>>  > From what you say, it sounds as if we are better looking at things a
>>  > slightly different way. The key connection is between instances and
>>  > types, with templates as a likely but not essential "glue". So is
>>  > something like:
>>  > 
>>  > \DeclareInstanceType         (was \DeclareTemplateType)
>>  > \DeclareTemplate             (no change)
>>  > \DeclareInstanceFromTemplate (was \DeclareInstance)
>>  > \UseInstance                 (no change)
>>  > 
>>  > any more logical?  In that way, you can imagine declaring an instance in
>>  > some other way than from a template. I'm not looking for change for
>>  > changes sake, but am trying to make sure that things are as clear as
>>  > possible for anyone using the system.
>>
>> yes that seems to be much more in line with how I'm thinking about it. let's
>> keep that as a candidate and let it settle a bit (get a feel for it)
> 
> 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.

Okay, I was thinking about this again, with some examples in mind. At
the level which is currently \DeclareTemplateType, it looks to me we
have things like:

- Sectioning (chapters, sections, parts)
- Paragraph shape
- Note layout (footnotes, marginal notes, etc.)
- Lists (itemised, enumerated, description)

and so on. I'd probably call these "design elements", so it's pretty
clear to me that "template" doesn't fit in here. We could consider
\DeclareDesignElement or \DeclareElement (I don't like the later as,
since I'm a chemist, it suggests something very different!). However,
I'm not dismissing the \DeclareInstanceClass idea as it fits with
\DeclareInstance nicely.
-- 
Joseph Wright