Hello Frank and all, I've just read all the templates related mail from the last month, and I'd like to make some comments. Sorry for being so late. As for the ``sequence of footnotes'' issue: ------------------------------------------- If you seriously think of supporting sequences of footnotes (which I btw find a very annoying habit) you should provide a template type for a sequence of note marks and not for a single mark. If sequences are allowed, single footnote mark is not a self-contained entity. Consider e.g. a template that puts a frame around the footnote mark(s). Now to put the frame around 1,2 you have to have it in hand as a whole. Section heads ------------- The template type seems all right (at least I agree with all you've said), but I think the document syntax is still a problem. According to my experience the need for short version of the title for running head is common. On the other hand I have never typeset any document with titles in the toc different than in the text. With the syntax you proposed, to specify short text for the running head only one has to repeat the long title as toc text (or use hacks with \NoValue). If two optional parameters were exchanged I would be perfectly happy. But then probably some application with thousands of sections with alternative toc entries and no running head would emerge. :-) Expansion --------- A very inspiring mail of M.J. Downes about avoiding expansion of user-supplied text didn't seem to cause any response. Since I always felt that avoiding expansion is the right way to go, I'd like to ask what is the opinion of The LaTeX Team in that matter. This would be too much of a change for LaTeX 2e, but in the LaTeX 3 context the idea seems perfectly feasible. ---------- Shouldn't \DelayedEvaluation be rather named \DelayEvaluation or \EvalOnUse (I mean in a more procedural spirit)? With best Marcin