Mon, 24 Jun 2002 20:37:59 +0200
> 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 spend the last month(s) in collaboration with Hideo to work on a new release
of geometry, and i agree, it might indeed be a good idea as a first step to
move the (new) geometry distribution to required.
I would also think (if anybody has a bit of spare time :-( ) it would be great
if this "anybody" could do a bit work on a template based solution for this
> I also think that ifpdf.sty or its functionality should now also be
> considered "required".
again that sounds like a sensible idea (or else perhaps have it added to the
tools area, as it is so small). The problem in that area is (as i recall that
there are are numberof hacks around that actually define \pdfoutput in
certain situations. Those would trip a package like this. Can't remember
ofhand why one would do that, but if there are valid reasons, it seems a good
idea to provide an alternative solution.
ps Hideo/Heiko: if you are not on latex-l you may not be able to reply
sucessfully to this message without subscribing (don't fear to be overwelmed
with messages :-( --- but alternatively you can send any reply to me)