Will Robertson writes:
> Here I think it would be more "sensical" to write (respectively)
> Type: textual-note
> Template: plain-footnote
> Instance: <arbitrarydesignname> with parameters for numbering per page, etc.
> Type: division
> Template: plain-chapter
> Instance: <arbitrary-design-name> with parameters for fonts used, layout, etc.
> Note that different templates could be constructed such as
> "chapter-like-section", "fancy-chapter", and so on which would all be
> of type "division" (and hence take the same arguments) but use
> different parameters.
> The only reason that we "need" instances is to improve efficiency, and
> the only reason that we need instance names is because we need to be
> able to refer to them somehow.
not just because of efficiency
We "need" template types at this level to be able to rid ourselves from
explicit templates (with limited layout possibilities) on the document class
definition and we need instances with names (!) there to be able to refer to
the semantic meaning to produce an explicit design by selecting an appropriate
template (ie with the right type) and instantiating it under that name
> The instance names themselves don't
> carry as much structural meaning as the template name (some instance
> names might just be "standard" or "mydoc" or "default").
true, essentially they are only labels to "name" the instance, the same is
true for templates really. However, that shouldn't prevent us from using
sensible names to convay meaning as far as possible.