LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project

LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML 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:
Mon, 10 Dec 2018 21:54:32 +1030
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (16 lines)
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.

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2