>>>>> "Uwe" == Uwe Stöhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I agree that scrbook is better than book, but are we sure that >> everybody will have a working version of it? I mean, not just >> everybody with a two years old linux distribution, but really most >> people. Uwe> The koma-schript classes scr* are standard on all LeTeX2e Uwe> distributions. I think this is indeed true in practice. However, a latex2e distribution only needs to contains what is in the base/ and required/ directories of CTAN:macros/latex, in theory. Let's drop this problem for now, I am probably being too picky. >> I read also that scrbook leans towards european users. Is that >> true? Uwe> I don't know what you mean. The reason why the scr*-classes are Uwe> made is the printing space, see the documentation of koma-script. Uwe> (The printing space is calculated automatically for every page Uwe> dimesion, also for non ISO formats like USletter. (Correct me if Uwe> I'm wrong.)) The section 1.3 of scrguien says that it has been designed to create german documents... Uwe> - use A4-paper instead of 'standard' How does that print on >> USletter paper? I thought there were still quite a lot of people >> using that... I am not sure that a4 is a better default than >> usletter (OK, I agree that it is a better standard, and this is >> what I use....). Uwe> I googled and found out, that USletter is 8.5 x 11 inches that is Uwe> in SI-Units: 216 x 279 mm A4 is 210 x 279 mm so this shouldn't Uwe> produce problems. (Maybe I'm wrong with the sizes, could somebody Uwe> check it?) My point was that, while having usletter as format is annoying to us europeans, using a4paper is equally annoying to us users. This is why the choice was made to keep latex default. I can live with a4, though. Uwe> OK seting the margins by hand is always a nasty hack. It is Uwe> better to remove this stuff, because scrbook calculates the Uwe> dimensions automatically, as said above. This has furthermore the Uwe> advantage that the margin note in chapter 4.2 will appear Uwe> correct. OK. >> redefinition of \footnote seems very fragile to me. What about >> setting a value to \footnotesep instead? Anyway I would tend to >> leave document classes defaults as they are, since what one user >> may find ugly may be to the taste of another one. Uwe> \footnotesep doesn't make the job. I don't know why. And you Uwe> convinced me again. It is not really necessary. OK. Uwe> - delete the unneeded declaration of non-T1 encoded characters Uwe> use the package textcomp instead (see also the note above the Uwe> table in chapter 6.6.3) In what latex version was textcomp.sty >> added to base latex? Uwe> Don't know, but the actual version is from 2001/06/05 and the Uwe> .sty says copyright till 1993. (The actual preamble of the Uwe> userguide is from 1997, possibly textcomp wasn't standard at this Uwe> time.) OK, let's use textcomp.sty. Uwe> Could this be done with scrbook options? How? I added this, Uwe> because it is used in the de_* files for years. I think the scrbook options 'bibtotoc' and 'idxtotoc' do what you want. >> Concerning tocbibind itself, it dates from 1998, so one could >> consider that it will be present on any system capable of building >> LyX. Uwe> (actual version is 2003/02/04 v1.5f) Well, it is not on my tru64 system which has an ancient latex from 1997, but I cannot compile lyx on it, either ;) >> I am not sure I like that. Hyperref is great as long as it works. >> There are a lot of horror stories about subtly incompatible >> versions of hyperref, babel, or whatever. Uwe> I met the maintainer of hyperref last week, asked him about Uwe> problems with babel and tocbibind and he denied. I also tested it Uwe> together with usual packages and couldn't see any conflicts. It Uwe> works with the doc, because only tocbibind and babel is used. I Uwe> also tested babel with different languages and the LaTeX-output Uwe> with tex4ht. LaTeX2html has also full hyperref-support. I can agree that current versions of all these packages work well together. What I do not know is what happens with two or three years old versions of these packages. Similarly, not all pdflatex versions are equally capable, from what I understand. >> I'd rather avoid it in the documentations (for the reasons outlined >> above). Uwe> Hey, this was the reason why I provided a new userguide version. Uwe> Linked cross references (in dvi too!) are a dream when you want Uwe> to read large documents. I understand that, my point is just that we should make sure that the documentation can be printed by people who do not have the latest and greatest system. >> If we really want to generate nice pdf docs (and we should >> definitely have some on our site!) we can always use tex2pdf: >> http://tex2pdf.berlios.de/ Uwe> Why don't you want to use the pdftex engine? This is always up to Uwe> date and part of all usual LaTeX2e-distibution. And when you look Uwe> at the tex2pdf page, you can read the following: I was under the impression that tex2pdf was designed to solve the kind of problems we are trying to solve here. It may be that I am wrong, I do not have first hand experience with it. Did you try it? Uwe> When using pdftex together with LyX, epstopdf is automatically Uwe> used for eps-images. And for linked cross-references you need Uwe> hyperref too. I think that the purpose of tex2pdf is to add the magic to the .tex file and then generate a pdf from it. This would mean that no pdf magic is needed in the preamble (ideally). Uwe> - clean up the document: - the TOC pages are numbered roman Why >> didn't you use \fronmatter/\mainmatter/\backmatter? Uwe> What's the difference? The commands also have to be inserted as Uwe> ERT, or am I wrong here? The difference is that this is proper markup to declare the structure of the document. It does a few additional things, for example, a chapter in frontmatter will come out unnumbered, but still appear in toc. And, yes, LyX should have native support for that (there is a corresponding bug on bugzilla). The idea is that the ERT we use in the documentation should be the kind of ERT that we encourage the users to use in their own documents. Uwe> I'll also add some comments to this page: Uwe> http://wiki.lyx.org/pmwiki.php/DevelDoc/UserGuide Uwe> later this day. OK, I'll take a look. Another thing: there is a \usepackage[english]{babel} in the preamble. Why is it necessary? JMarc
