James wrote: > > my questions to this list would be now: > > > > c) can you define the layout you are looking for? > > if not: > > - are there keys missing for the current templates? > > - are there other templates missing that do radically different things? > > - are the keys perhaps the wrong ones? > > One more key : number-indent =l [0pt] \parindent > Perhaps it should be `first-line-indent'. Used below. yes, probably. and probably all keys should be a little bit more uniform in names and bahviour, eg if we have right-margin-sep why don't we have left-margin-sep? > For the contents I am trying to simulate I seem to need both > chapter and un-numbered-chapter instances. That would have implications > for the templates which write the table of contents file. (I also need > a demi-bold font, but thats by-the-by) i strongly believe that we do something seriously wrong if something like the design of the TOC has implications for the templates that generate the toc entries. if we have such a dependency then i think we need to consider modifying the contentsobject templates instead. after all, i as a designer, want to change the layout of the TOC by changing the instances for contentsobject but i don't want to be forced to change the instances of `headings' at the same time. the main reason for having a proper interface that passes along enough data was to avoid such dependencies. so the conclusion for me is that James' simulation of the Ktheory TOC suggests that we do need a different type of contentsobject template. since my feeling is that the current templates do nicely for a large number of toc layouts i would not try to extend them directly to cater for the case that the unnumbered object requires a very different layout in comparison to the numbered object. Instead my proposal is to add a `combination' template which allows that specification; something like this: \DeclareTemplate{contentsobject}{combined}{6}{ numbered-setup =i {contentsobject} \contents@numbered, unnumbered-setup =i {contentsobject} \contents@unnumbered, } { \DoParameterAssignments \IfNoValueTF{#3} { \contents@unnumbered } { \contents@numbered } {#1}{#2}{#3}{#4}{#5}{#6} } This template does nothing but decides (depending on whether or not a number is present) which real template (or rather which instance) to use. --- the name `combined' is very much rubbish: anybody having a good idea how to call such types of templates; i'm sure that one will see them more often in the future. having this template the instances for James' simulation would then look like this: \DeclareCollectionInstance{Ktheory}{contentsobject}{chapter}{combined} { numbered-setup = \UseTemplate{contentsobject}{JK} {pre-v-action = \DelayEvaluation{ \addpenalty{10000}\addvspace{0.5ex plus 1pt}}, number-format = \textbf{\hfil Chapter~#1.\nobreakspace}, title-format = \textbf{#1}, pnum-format = \textbf{\hfil#1}, leaders-sep = 100cm, object-indent = 2cm, number-indent = -2cm, number-width = 2cm}, unnumbered-setup = \UseTemplate{contentsobject}{JK} {pre-v-action = \DelayEvaluation{ \addpenalty{10000}\addvspace{1ex plus 1pt}}, title-format = \textbf{#1}, pnum-format = \textbf{\hfil#1}, leaders-sep = 100cm}, } or assuming that the indivdual instances have been named: \DeclareCollectionInstance{Ktheory}{contentsobject}{chapter}{combined} { numbered-setup = numberedchapter, unnumbered-setup = unnumberedchapter, } > > e) how difficult is it to implement a given design? > > It's straightforward but fiddley, is it? if so why? because things could be improved or because the situation is complex and nothing could be done about it? i would like to repeat my questions from the previous post (with one additional question at the end): - can you define the layout you are looking for? if not: - are there keys missing for the current templates? - are there other templates missing that do radically different things? - are the keys perhaps the wrong ones? - share your thoughts and sample trials with us - do you have a good suggestion for the name of the above template `combined'? frank