From: Beni C. <cb...@us...> - 2003-09-11 13:06:05
|
eng...@ss... wrote on 2003-09-11: > > I think that we should keep the look-and-feel of LaTeX's titlepages, > > with authors and date without any "Author:" and "Date:" prefixes and > > with other bib. fields in smaller font (but bigger than in > > document) after some vertical space, with field names but not in bold > > (otherwise they would draw too much attention from the titlepage). > > > > What do you think? > > looks silly sometimes, e.g. title, author, date are from latex > one other line is a docutils docinfo. > I now think date should not be LaTeX's, it's no more special than organization or contact... However, title and author, in my (not-so-humble in this case ;) opinion should be shown simply by central location and font size, as LaTeX does. They are, after all, the two most important things about a document. It's not accidental that LaTeX paid special attention to only a few things. > and this would not mean > > I think that we should keep the look-and-feel of LaTeX's titlepages, > > maybe additional info could be put on the backside of the titlepage. Perhaps (for classes with a titlepage). It also avoids the danger of overloading the front page. It'd be nice to leave it open to the user. > (or we could put it into the stylesheet. problem is how to put the > stylesheet does not know the fieldnames) > That's most probably the best approach. We can expose the fieldnames (all of them, duplicating ``\title`` and friends which would remain only for benefit of programs that catalogue latex documents, etc.) as macros; this way the stylesheet could use them or not. An inconvenient point is that the stylesheet must know which fields are present and which aren't; if we reverse it and make the writer emit commands that the stylesheet should define, e.g.:: \showtitle{title} \showauthor{author} ... \showgeneric{Foo}{bar} etc., then the writer is forcing the order of the fields - is this an issue? -- Beni Cherniavsky <cb...@us...> |