LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for LATEX-L Archives


LATEX-L Archives

LATEX-L Archives


LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

LATEX-L Home

LATEX-L Home

LATEX-L  October 1999

LATEX-L October 1999

Subject:

Re: section heading templates

From:

Frank Mittelbach <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 29 Oct 1999 17:51:51 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (166 lines)

James Kilfiger writes:

 > I was thinking rather vaguely about templates for sectional heading.
 > I can think of at three style for authors to make sectional headings.
 > As now, with section commands, with section evironments, and in a
 > list-like manner. Templates for headings should be able of supporting
 > classes that use a mixture of these styles.

right, templates should support different styles of user syntax but
then the separation between user syntax, via xparse for example, and
actual formatting etc via the template mechanism does support this (or
should).

as far as section commands ala latex and section environments are
concerned i don't see any difficulties. can you be a bit more specific
in what you mean by "in a list-like manner"? e.g. show a syntax
example of what you mean


 >   About the syntax for sectional commands, the most useful thing would
 > be a separation of the numbering/nonumbering and table of contents
 > options.

well i would be interested in hearing some additional opinions on
that. questions:

 o should there be user level control on whether or not a heading has
   a number? (or are those things logically simply different tags and
   we are only used to saying \chapter* instead of \frontmatterchapter
   or whatever because nothing else was available)

   in other words is this really a flexibility that is needed/wanted
   or only there to hide the fact that some general functionality is
   missing?

 o assuming that such flexibility above is wanted, should it be
   possible to individually change

     - number on/off
     - heading in TOC (yes/no)
     - heading in running head (yes/no)

   clearly it does not make sense to have a numbered heading but not
   put it into the TOC if other headings of the same level appear in
   the TOC. on the other hand in many cases were a heading has no
   number (eg in front or back matter) it is still desirable to have a
   TOC entry, typical example being "Bibliography".  Normally i would
   claim, however, that all this is something that really ought be
   decided by the document class rather than manually by the user
   (even though there might be a good argument to allow the user a
   manual overwrite possibility)

   as for the running head info i don't really see that there is any
   reason for the user to meddle with the decision to put some info in
   or not (on an individual basis that is). there is a good argument
   for enabling the user to input a text variation, eg if the heading
   title is rather long, there should be a possibility to specify a
   meaningful abbreviation, but i can't think of any case where i
   would like to say: "don't put the heading text for this heading
   into the running head but do so for all others".

   anybody having a good argument against this? or a good example when
   this is helpful/needed?



 > A possible approach would be two true/false arguments, would
 > a specification like {s o m s} be hard to remember and use? so perhaps
 > the specification should be something like {s o m o}, the final argument
 > defaulting to [t] for `table of contents' or [ht] for header and table
 > of contents.  (BTW this seems to show a general problem in Latex syntax
 > when two or more indepedent optional arguments are required.)

it is correct that the current LaTeX syntax is a bit poor in this respect
but so it is. by separating xparse and templates we are free to
provide a better front-end one day by using something else than xparse.

as far as the template arguments are concerned i think they should be
of type boolean here (how this is mapped to latex top level syntax is
a different matter)

my current idea about the template type heading is like this:

  #1    boolean         number or not
  #2    boolean         text into toc or not
  #3    boolean         text into running head/foot or not
  #4    text            heading text (required)
  #5    text/NoValue    text for toc (use #4 if NoValue)
  #6    text/NoValue    text for runhead (use #4 if NoValue)
  #7    text/NoValue    supplementary text like a motto

as i said above i'm not at all sure about the need or the
"sensibility" of #2/#3 except perhaps for compatibility purposes to
latex2e classes --- to tell me your thoughts.

with the above type the current chapter command could look like this
(ignoring most of the added functionality):

 \DeclareDocumentCommand \chapter { s o m }
   {
     \UseInstance{heading}{chapter}
         {#1} {#1} {#1} {#3} {#2} {#2} \NoValue
   }

ie if thereis a star we suppress number toc and runhead (first three
args) we pass the mandatory argument as the forth template arg and the
optional goes into the variant for toc and runhead and we never
typeset a motto

who could we make the extended functionality available in latex like
syntax? in many ways of course, here is one, whether it is a good one
i don't know:

 \DeclareDocumentCommand \chapter { s o s o s m o }
   {
     \UseInstance{heading}{chapter}
         {#1} {#3} {#5} {#6} {#2} {#4} {#7}
   }

this may look like madness :-) but there is some logic behind it:

 *   means no number
 []  the text for the toc
 *   don't put text in toc
 []  text for runhead
 *   don't put text in runhead
 {}  main heading text
 []  motto if any

so

 \chapter*{BAR}

makes a heading with no number but BAR in the toc and in runhead

 \chapter**{BAR}

makes a heading with no number and no toc entry but BAR  in runhead

if you really would like to have a number but no toc entry this would
be possible as well but only with some difficulty:

 \chapter[]*{BAR}

ie we have to give an alternate toc entry and then say we don't really
meant this :-)

and so on.

comments?


 >   It would be useful if the templates allowed putting stuff before or
 > after the section heading, useful for drawing rules and so on.  Is this
 > worthy of a an argument to the template.

it would definitley be useful if templates allowed putting stuff like
rules etc before and after a heading text, but would it reall be
correct to give this functionality to the user level? i think
not. this is something that would be a key to the individual template
and it would be fixed by the instance, ie headings in this layout have
rules and in other layouts (read document classes) they have not.

or do you see this differently?

frank

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2019
July 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
July 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
September 2007
August 2007
June 2007
May 2007
March 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
November 2004
October 2004
August 2004
July 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
October 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
March 2002
December 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

Universität Heidelberg | Impressum | Datenschutzerklärung

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager