Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Fri, 5 Nov 1999 20:58:55 +0100 |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Achim Blumensath writes:
> Here are two (random) things I've thought of:
>
> a) General structure. IMHO LaTeX should be much more modular so you can
> replace parts you don't like with your own implementation. It could be
> divided into the kernel containing just the programming environment
> like xparse, etc., and a lot of modules, one for each aspect of actual
> typesetting (lists, math, fonts, headings, pagestyle,...).
>
> The structure of a class file would be
>
> preamble
> including modules
> declaring instances of templates defined in the modules
this is sort of what we have in mind. perhaps even more separated on the class
file level in the sense that a class file of the new type might in fact come
as (probably two files):
a) a layout specification file which declares the layout which means loading
template modules and declaring instances
b) an interface file which maps those instances to document-level design.
c) perhaps a third file which does nothing but essentially loads part a) and
b)
this way the part a) can be also used by applications which use LaTeX as a
backend and perhaps prefer a different document syntax
at the same time part b) then declares class compatibility, ie two classes
sharing the same file b) can process the same documents.
> The advantage would be that you could
>
> o make cosmetic changes by writing a new class which uses other
> values to instantiate the templates, and
>
> o make fundamental changes by writing a new module with different
> implementation of templates.
right. if this properly formalized one can also make use of graphical
interfaces (or rather build them) which allow to declare or modify a class by
changing it through such an interface, eg, a la Scientific Word class editor
frank
|
|
|