LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Paul Thompson <[log in to unmask]>
Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:02:23 -0800
text/plain (52 lines)
I vote against \documenttype

When switching from 2.09 to 2e, it was very confusing to have the two initiation strings so similar. It was hard to remember which was which, and I still sometimes need to look them up.  If possible, it would be nice to have something quite different:


Anything which sounds like the start of a document, but which is different from 2e, would be good.

 Paul Thompson

Division of Biostatistics
Washington University School of Medicine
St Louis, MO 63108

25 Signal Hill Blvd
Belleville, IL   62223-1650

----- Original Message ----
From: William F Hammond <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 5:11:15 PM
Subject: Re: Key points of LaTex3

Joseph Wright <[log in to unmask]> writes:

> I'd imagine that LaTeX3 documents will start with something other than
> \documentclass (let's call it \documenttype, for arguments sake).  Given
> the likely size of a LaTeX3 kernel, essentially the entire 2e kernel
> could also be included without making it all that much bigger.  If the
> first line of the file is \documenttype, the 2e stuff is never used.  On
> the other hand, if \documentclass is found, the new kernel "bails out",
> runs the current 2e code and the file is processed as a 2e document.

I'd like to suggest that \documenttype, consistent with usage in the
gellmu project, be reserved for a document under an abstract
LaTeX-like markup instance that is equivalent to a document instance
under an SGML (or XML) document type.

I think something like \Documentclass (upper case) would make more
sense for new regime documents written in LaTeX the typesetting language


                                    -- Bill