axiom-developer
[Top][All Lists]

## [Axiom-developer] Re: article "standard" header/footer

 From: Ralf Hemmecke Subject: [Axiom-developer] Re: article "standard" header/footer Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 14:42:29 +0100 User-agent: Thunderbird 1.4 (X11/20050908)

Dear Tim,


I think, it's a good idea that you've posted this "standard". I hope it is still in an "discussion" state. I had a quick look at it and there are some parts where I would restructure a bit. For other parts I need to make up my mind first, so this will take some time.


Just one quick comment... there are several places where you use TeX syntax. I'd prefer to promote LaTeX (it's \newpage instead of \eject). In fact I don't like to see \eject at all. It is the task of the .cls file to decide on the pagebreaks --> So maybe "\documentclass{report}" would be more appropriate.


What I have seen is that axiom.sty in some way includes the whole of noweb.sty and adds some commands related to Axiom. I would rather like to see a structure like

\documentclass{...}
\usepackage{metaaxiom}
\begin{document}
...
\end{document}


where metaaxiom.sty (or whatever you call it) whould be the name of a package that simply includes all the other packages that are needed. Also makeidx and hyperref should appear inside metaaxiom.sty via

\RequirePackage{makeidx}

\begin{thebibliography}{99}
\bibitem{1} nothing
\end{thebibliography}


It is old technology. We should promote BibTeX. It would be much easier to maintain.

I'll write a follow-up later...


Anyway, I like the idea with \author{} and abstract. Maybe I should learn about the term "executive overview". I am not quiet sure what "executive" stands for in this phrase. Isn't it a kind of "Introduction" what Martin wants? So what could possibly be the difference between "Introduction" and "Executive Overview"?

Ralf