Dan, > 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 >bundle). > 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 area. > 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. frank 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)