LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


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
"Julien \"_FrnchFrgg_\" RIVAUD" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Mon, 10 Dec 2018 16:12:03 +0100
text/plain (31 lines)
Le 10/12/2018 à 12:24, Will Robertson a écrit :
> Hi Kelly,
>> On 10 Dec 2018, at 5:23 pm, Kelly Smith <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> My question: is this a good solution/compromise for the issues I described?
>> It seems reasonable to me, but I fear I’m probably biased :-)
> I definitely agree that unteasing these definitions is a good idea. In particular I like the idea of generalising the formulae in calculating relative font sizes.

I wrote something for that, which I think is orthogonal to relsize. The 
code is at

[ It is not yet on CTAN because the only thing using it is my own class, 
which is not ready for CTAN (and might well never be, since it is more 
or less a mix of reimplementations of article/book.cls, inclusions / 
usage of existing packages with settings that I like, and layout 
settings that I consider better than the default ones). The class is 
"rivbook" ( ) and 
looks like 

> Frank did mention to me in Brazil that the relsize package has some quirks in that the font size transformations aren’t always reversible — stepping up then down again could lead to a non-zero difference in font sizes. I agree with him it would be important to avoid this kind of imprecision...
> Sorry I don’t have too much more to say than that it sounds like you’re on the right track!
> Regards,
> Will