#43 Not using `automark`, `\automark`, `manualmark`, or `\manualmark` in the examples in section 5.4

[Markus Kohm]

There was a question by e-mail about the following fact: In section 5.4 “Using Predefined Page Styles” of the KOMA-Script manuals neither option automark nor manualmark and neither command \automark nor \manualmarkis used. However in section 5.5 “Manipulating Page Styles” you can find a kind of recommendation to always use one of the options or commands to have a well defined condition. So what would be best with the examples in section 5.4, esp. with static page header and footer as shown in those examples and shouldn't they be changed?

[Markus Kohm]

The examples should not be changed, because this would need to use a command or option not yet documented. And a change is not needed, because all these examples use scrartcl and—as I know—the default of scrartcl is already manual marks. So adding one more manualmark or \manualmark would not change anything. Moreover, for all these examples with static page header and footer using automark or \automark[…]{…} also would not change anything except a minimal increase of runtime (because of running \markboth or \markright).

So all these examples are correct and adding a not yet explained option or command would not really improve them.

The only thing, that maybe could be done, would be to explain in section 5.5, why manualmark in section 5.4 wasn't needed, but could make some sense, if someone is not sure what the defaults of the used class are.