LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project

LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

Options: Use Forum View

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

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

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Will Robertson <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:22:01 +0930
Content-Type:
multipart/signed
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1172 bytes) , smime.p7s (2446 bytes)
On 10/06/2009, at 4:39 PM, Joseph Wright wrote:

> This is, I think, a good idea. However, I wonder if a second level of
> control might be a good thing. At the moment, the first section  
> contains
> all of the documentation. However, if you consider some user  
> package, it
> would be helpful to have the user functions and internal stuff
> documented separately.

I agree that adding this sort of markup can be useful. In an HTML-like  
way, we could write, e.g.,

\begin[class=documentation]{textblock}
\begin[class=user-functions]{textblock}

\end{textblock}
\begin[class=internal-functions]{textblock}

\end{textblock}
\end{textblock}

Of course, these could then be wrapped up into environments again to  
make them convenient to type in the document. But I'd like to start  
thinking how we can use generic document elements like this for a  
variety of tasks.

(Bits and pieces come to mind; \begin{figure} could be a shorthand for  
\begin[class=figure,display=float]{textblock}, for example.)

I'm not sure of any class/package that tackles things in this sort of  
way. The extract package is the only one I know of to conditionally  
put bits and pieces of a generic document together.

Will

ATOM RSS1 RSS2