| Title: | DOCUMENT T1.0 |
| Notice: | **New notesfile (DOCUMENT.NOTE) now available (see note 897)** |
| Moderator: | CLOSET::ADLER |
| Created: | Mon Feb 09 1987 |
| Last Modified: | Thu Oct 31 1991 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 897 |
| Total number of notes: | 4397 |
In the GENERAL doctype, numbered lists are produced with no extra
margins, and with the list numbers in boldface. Is this a deliberate
decision or something that slipped through the cracks? It seems
inconsistent with the TeX and LaTeX books, which, though not
authorities, are the best references available to me on typographic
style.
Gary
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 338.1 | no special reason | CLOSET::ANKLAM | Tue May 05 1987 10:53 | 5 | |
It may be an oversight; will check on it. Do others find the
bolded numbers inconsistent?
-pa
| |||||
| 338.2 | I wouldn't expect bolding of the numbers | ATLAST::BOUKNIGHT | Everything has an outline | Wed May 06 1987 15:36 | 9 |
My limited knowledge and understanding of DOCUMENT would have led
me to 1) not expect the numbers to be bolded unless I explicitly
said so, and 2) if such a capability existed, I would expect there
to be a \BOLD qualifier for the <LIST>(NUMBERED) tag.
If that's not possible, want to include \BOLD, \EMPHASIS, ETC. or
something the abouts on the wishlist?
Jack
| |||||
| 338.3 | TOKLAS::FELDMAN | PDS, our next success | Wed May 06 1987 16:17 | 6 | |
It also just occurred to me that the one place where I might expect
bolding is in an environment analogous to the LaTeX \description
command. I wonder if that explains how the current behavior came
about.
Gary
| |||||
| 338.4 | here's how | CLOSET::ANKLAM | Thu May 07 1987 01:48 | 16 | |
actually the current behavior is based on the way some of our
doctypes grew. History lesson: before we had TeX, we had some
book designs developed specifically for VMS V4.0. These designs
specified bold numbers in list elements. As we developed design
files for TeX, we tended to copy an existing one and modify it.
GENERAL was never given any special attention, design-wise, so
it probably has quite a few vestigial design elements.
allowing the specification of bold/italic etc on list numbers is
the kind of feature that leads to chaos in structured, multi-author
doctypes. It's easy enough to change at the design level, which
is the place to make it consistent.
patti
| |||||