From: Stefan M. <sm...@oe...> - 2010-09-13 17:48:08
|
Hi Alan, Günter, all! 2 days ago Alan G Isaac wrote: > On 9/10/2010 3:11 PM, Stefan Merten wrote: >> The problem with this approach for me is: It introduces a lot of >> degrees of freedom which is useful re flexibility but not useful re >> easyness and compatibility. The lots of degrees of freedom end up in >> difficult problems you already discussed in this thread. > > > I think at the most basic level, there is not a conflict. True. But there are different opinions about the right default. > The idea was that objects that should generate a slide should > be decorated with a ``slide`` class. > > Naturally we want to be able to write documents for slides ^^^^^^^^^ > where sub(sub)sections are automatically used as slides. > For this, we just need to be able to specify as an option ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > what level of sectioning determines slides. This can be > implemented by decorating every section at the appropriate > header level. (I.e., with a user option.) Well, if you think it is naturally to use sections then why force people to specify an option? Convention over configuration would make the natural thing the default and the alternative, often more powerful approach an option. That is how reStructuredText works and that is what seems useful to me. > Then only additional objects for which slides are wanted > need be decorated by hand. If there are none, then nothing need > be added by hand. Still the option needs to be given by hand. Yesterday Guenter Milde wrote: > On 2010-09-10, Stefan Merten wrote: >> 3 days ago Guenter Milde wrote: >>> For improved flexibility > >> Flexibility is a point. But I don't understood why it is needed. > > I suggested the de-coupling of section structure and slide structure > because I have a background in the "seminar" LaTeX class where these > are implemented completely orthogonal. > > IMO, there are use cases for: > > a) slides without heading/title Could be managed by using transitions. > b) more than one (sub) sections on one slide I hardly can imagine slides where you want to have *sections* on a slide but ok. > which cannot be achieved with Alans: "use the lowest section level" > convention. True. I'd even add the use case that not all parts of a slide set have the leaf nodes at the same height. Thus I'd suggest a default rule like "every section containing content beyond comments and nested sections". >>> and compatibility with other writers, > >> I support that goal. But do classes not supported by other writers >> really help this goal? My first feeling is scepticism. > > For class arguments, "not supported" means "ignored". Hence, class > arguments are IMO the best way to mark features that have only a meaning > to slide-writers. But sections have the right meaning everywhere. >> May be you can add transitions to the list of supported structures to >> end up as headerless slides. > > If a transition "ends up" as headerless slide, this would be an empty > slide, because a transition has no content. > > But it might be used to start a new slide :-) Thanks for nit-picking. My suggestion is to have an option to change the usual default like "--ignore-sections". The meaning of this option would be to turn off the standard meaning of sections and transitions as slide starters and turn on use of classes. Of course such an option could also have an argument to ignore sections starting with a certail level. >> In my previous mail I proposed a syntax for a pause. My main point is >> that such a syntax must be tiny and inline so it doesn't disturb you >> when you are reading the source. > > Are "pauses" really used in-line (inside paragraphs, say)? I don't know whether you ever cared to read the beamer manual but IIRC it is even mentioned there. >> Classes do not have these features. Roles may but roles are for >> regions whereas here you have a point. Substitutions are the only >> standard reST facility coming to my mind which seem fit here. > > Substitutions are not seen by the writer. True. That is indeed a problem which needs to be addressed anyway. I once suggested to have an additional <generated> element for substitutions. But I agree that's a different topic. > The role content (say :pause:`*`) can be ignored by the writer/style. > You can define a substitution in your document if this is still too much > "visual clutter". I can't. The problem with a substitution is that I can not substitute an empty string - at least I found no solution for this. But that is what would be needed: A markup recognized by the writer which can be defined as a substitution ending up as an empty string. Any ideas? > With the latex2e writer, you can already convert a :pause: role into a > ``\pause`` command (ignoring the content) by defining a \DUrolepause > macro in the preamble or style sheet. This breaks compatibility with other writers since even if they are able to handle the :pause: role they should not ignore the content. >> *If* we really need the flexibility here then I'd prefer a convention >> over configuration approach. By default the sectioning is the lead but >> you may use special classes like you suggested to ignore the section >> structure. > > Than make your favourite setting the default. Which would be a configuration over convention approach. So far I don't need to tweak the defaults in reStructuredText which also makes documents unportable. Grüße Stefan |