LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Daniel Luecking <[log in to unmask]>
Fri, 21 Jun 2002 14:44:17 -0500
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (44 lines)
Below is a copy of a ortion of a message I sent to the
comp.text.tex newsgroup. Someone there, whose opinion I
respect, suggested it would be good (and more likely to stir
some discussion and action) to send it to the latex-l list.

Some background (with which you are all perhaps familiar): a very
(very, very) frequently asked question on c.t.t is how to get
some custom page layout, or how to get "landscape in acrobat reader",
or why GSview shows the landscape page upside down. It occurred to
me that many of these type of thing could be handled with specials,
or directly in LaTeX provided, of course, that LaTeX knew the
intended output driver.

Here, verbatim, is that message to c.t.t:

>    With the increasing production of electronic documents, it
>is time for latex to standardize the user interface for page
>geometry, much as it did graphics inclusion (with the graphics
>    Since pdf output is used as much for viewing as for printing
>(if not more), the variety of page layouts is not restricted by
>standardized paper sizes. Moreover, the action required to
>implement a particular geometry is often driver dependent, so a
>common user-level interface is getting to be a must.
>    Standardization could also provide a consistent set of
>definitions. For example, does "landscape" mean to rotate the
>media or the text? Which way? This makes little difference if the
>output is paper, but on screen it's a different matter.
>    Merely adding geomerty.sty to the "required" area of latex
>would be a step forward.

I also think that ifpdf.sty or its functionality should now also be
considered "required".


Daniel H. Luecking          [log in to unmask]
Department of Mathematical Sciences
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville AR 72701-1201