Re: [RFR] templates://auctex/{auctex/templates}
Justin B Rye <jbr@edlug.org.uk> writes:
> Christian Perrier wrote:
>> I slightly reworked your proposal to fit some style recommendations
>> (no sentence in synopsis, no double spaces, avoid "you"). That gives:
>>
>> Package: preview-latex-style
> [...]
>> The purpose of the preview package is the extraction of selected
>
> Since this is a Debian package description (explaining the purpose
> of preview-latex-style*.deb) it needs to be clear that preview isn't
> a package in that sense.
Why? What possible difference could it make to the user?
> The purpose of the preview LaTeX package is the extraction of
> selected
The problem is that this wording will make people confuse the preview
package with preview-latex, and the name of the Debian package does
nothing to help: its naming is supposed to be consistent with other
"latex-style" packages and indicate a LaTeX package named "preview", but
given that this package was previously part of a subsystem called
"preview-latex", nobody will be able to figure out _that_. It is
"preview"-"latex-style". Ouch.
So I'd strongly suggest to avoid "preview latex" right after another
with any combination of casing and interpunction.
> [...]
>> Current uses of the package include the preview-latex package for
>> WYSIWYG functionality in the AUCTeX editing environment, generation of
>> previews in LyX, as part of the operation of the ps4pdf and pst-pdf
>> packages, the tbook XML system and some other tools.
>
> Wait, is that saying "Current uses of the preview-latex-style Debian
> package include the preview-latex LaTeX package (and some other
> things)"? What if anything is the difference between preview and
> preview-latex?
"preview-latex subsystem" would be more correct in that first sentence.
And I am by now pretty disgusted that it does not appear that you have
actually bothered reading the explanations at all.
> It's clear enough that ps4pdf etc are LaTeX rather than Debian
> packages, but looking up ps4pdf on CTAN I see it's deprecated in
> favour of pst-pdf. Any danger of text going out of date?
If it is deprecated, it is unlikely that future versions will appear
that don't need preview.sty. So what is there to go out of date?
I have yet to see a single instance where you don't propose or
understand the exact opposite of what appears appropriate.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Reply to: