\nomarking without dots?

\nomarking without dots?

[fiëé visuëlle]

A happy new year!

Hans, you planned to make \nomarking configurable, that one can use it 
with our without dots. Is it already in the beta?
Actually I need it without dots.

Further, I find the dots much too wide spread; the kerning should be 
about the half of the actual.


Grüßlis vom Hraban!
-- 
www.fiee.net/texnique/
www.ramm.ch/context/

Re: \nomarking without dots?

[Gilles Pérez-Lambert]

Hello,

> Hans, you planned to make \nomarking configurable, that one can use 
> it with our without dots. Is it already in the beta?
> Actually I need it without dots.

I asked this question a while ago and obtained an answer:

	http://ml-archives.mini.pw.edu.pl/ntg-context/msg08177.html

As I forgot (oops) to enter the request into bugzilla, I'm doing it 
right now.

Happy New Year,

Gilles.

Re: \nomarking without dots?

[fiëé visuëlle]

>> Hans, you planned to make \nomarking configurable, that one can use
>> it with our without dots. Is it already in the beta?
>> Actually I need it without dots.
>
> I asked this question a while ago and obtained an answer:
> http://ml-archives.mini.pw.edu.pl/ntg-context/msg08177.html

Thank you, I found that already (forgot to mention), but it doesn't 
change anything.
Maybe it's because I use \nomarking together with \nolist?

Grüßlis vom Hraban!
-- 
www.fiee.net/texnique/
www.ramm.ch/context/

Re: \nomarking without dots?

[Hans Hagen]

At 07:38 PM 1/3/2003 +0100, you wrote:
>A happy new year!
>
>Hans, you planned to make \nomarking configurable, that one can use it 
>with our without dots. Is it already in the beta?
>Actually I need it without dots.

gimme a keyword ...

Hans
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE | pragma@wxs.nl
                       Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
  tel: +31 (0)38 477 53 69 | fax: +31 (0)38 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        information: http://www.pragma-ade.com/roadmap.pdf
                     documentation: http://www.pragma-ade.com/showcase.pdf
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: \nomarking without dots?

[Henning Hraban Ramm]

>> Hans, you planned to make \nomarking configurable, that one can use 
>> it with our without dots. Is it already in the beta?
>> Actually I need it without dots.
>
> gimme a keyword ...

\nomarking hides headline texts in headers, \nolist does the same for 
lists (toc),
but they dont't simply hide the text, but places an ellipsis (\dots{}).

1. I'd like to use \nomarking and \nolist without any marking of the 
hidden text.
2. redefining the commands is no ConTeXty way, I'd like some \setup...
3. There was a hint to redefine the commands with \space, bit it didn't 
work;
perhaps because I normally use them together.
x. The stops of \dots are generally a bit too much spaced.

Enough keywords? :-)

BTW: Adam Lindsay asked the same.

Grüßlis vom Hraban!
-- 
www.fiee.net/texnique/
www.ramm.ch/context/

Re: \nomarking without dots?

[Hans Hagen]

At 09:14 PM 1/13/2003 +0100, Henning Hraban Ramm wrote:
>>>Hans, you planned to make \nomarking configurable, that one can use it 
>>>with our without dots. Is it already in the beta?
>>>Actually I need it without dots.
>>
>>gimme a keyword ...
>
>\nomarking hides headline texts in headers, \nolist does the same for 
>lists (toc),
>but they dont't simply hide the text, but places an ellipsis (\dots{}).
>
>1. I'd like to use \nomarking and \nolist without any marking of the 
>hidden text.
>2. redefining the commands is no ConTeXty way, I'd like some \setup...
>3. There was a hint to redefine the commands with \space, bit it didn't work;
>perhaps because I normally use them together.
>x. The stops of \dots are generally a bit too much spaced.
>
>Enough keywords? :-)
>
>BTW: Adam Lindsay asked the same.

still no keyword:

   \setupmarking[hraban=...]

so, in this case the keyword is rhaban -)

now, ....

Hans


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE | pragma@wxs.nl
                       Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
  tel: +31 (0)38 477 53 69 | fax: +31 (0)38 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        information: http://www.pragma-ade.com/roadmap.pdf
                     documentation: http://www.pragma-ade.com/showcase.pdf
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: \nomarking without dots?

[Adam Lindsay]

Henning Hraban Ramm said this at Mon, 13 Jan 2003 21:14:30 +0100:

>>> Hans, you planned to make \nomarking configurable, that one can use 
>>> it with our without dots. Is it already in the beta?
>>> Actually I need it without dots.
>>
>> gimme a keyword ...

Do you mean this?

\hidetext[..,..=..,..]{ text }
    where = *all*,list,marking
  replace = *dots*,space

\setuphidetext[..=..]
  (as above)

perhaps the "text" part suggests a more general mechanism than this is.
\hideheadpart ? \hideheadtext ?

>\nomarking hides headline texts in headers, \nolist does the same for 
>lists (toc),

Yes, now that I know what those commands do :), I'm a bit confused at how
they interact. I can imagine wanting to hide the same or overlapping text
in headers/footers and ToC's, which is why I suggested a command spanning
both.

>but they dont't simply hide the text, but places an ellipsis (\dots{}).
>
>1. I'd like to use \nomarking and \nolist without any marking of the 
>hidden text.
>2. redefining the commands is no ConTeXty way, I'd like some \setup...
>3. There was a hint to redefine the commands with \space, bit it didn't 
>work;
>perhaps because I normally use them together.
>x. The stops of \dots are generally a bit too much spaced.
>
>Enough keywords? :-)
>
>BTW: Adam Lindsay asked the same.

Huh. yes, I guess I did. sorry I didn't pay better attention to your
thread earlier.

adam

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 Adam T. Lindsay                      atl@comp.lancs.ac.uk
 Computing Dept, Lancaster University   +44(0)1524/594.537
 Lancaster, LA1 4YR, UK             Fax:+44(0)1524/593.608
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: \nomarking without dots?

[Hraban]

Hans, I would like Adam's proposal much more than the existing 
\nothings!

> \hidetext[..,..=..,..]{ text }
>     where = *all*,list,marking
>   replace = *dots*,space
replace should know a "none"
>
> \setuphidetext[..=..]
>   (as above)
>

> Huh. yes, I guess I did. sorry I didn't pay better attention to your
> thread earlier.

Never mind. :-)

Grüßlis vom Hraban!
-- 
www.fiee.net/texnique/
www.ramm.ch/context/

Re: \nomarking without dots?

[Henning Hraban Ramm]

Am Dienstag, 14.01.03 um 18:03 Uhr schrieb Hans Hagen:
>>> gimme a keyword ...
>> Enough keywords? :-)
> still no keyword:

Sorry, I misunderstood you. ConTeXt has so much keys and words... ;-)

>   \setupmarking[hraban=...]
> so, in this case the keyword is rhaban -)

state, separator and expansion are the existing keywords.
I'd suggest "hide" or "replace" or "nomarking"
values could be [ *ellipsis* | space | none | {something} ]

Would that \setupmarking work also for \nolist?

Grüßlis vom Hraban!
-- 
www.fiee.net/texnique/
www.ramm.ch/context/

Re: \nomarking without dots?

[Bruce D'Arcus]

And can we get a subtitle structure so this is unnecessary?  :-)

Bruce

Re: \nomarking without dots?

[Hans Hagen]

At 12:08 PM 1/15/2003 -0500, you wrote:

>And can we get a subtitle structure so this is unnecessary?  :-)


i'm lost, what do you mean with subtitle?

Hans
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE | pragma@wxs.nl
                       Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
  tel: +31 (0)38 477 53 69 | fax: +31 (0)38 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        information: http://www.pragma-ade.com/roadmap.pdf
                     documentation: http://www.pragma-ade.com/showcase.pdf
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: \nomarking without dots?

[Bruce D'Arcus]

On Wednesday, January 15, 2003, at 12:26  PM, Hans Hagen wrote:

> At 12:08 PM 1/15/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>
>> And can we get a subtitle structure so this is unnecessary?  :-)
>
> i'm lost, what do you mean with subtitle?

Why do you need to hide part of a title?  It varies, but one common 
scenario is this:

Here is a somewhat long title: this also has a long subtitle

My point -- which Adam quoted in his original note -- was that I ought 
to be able to do this:

\title{Here is a somewhat long title}
\subtitle{this also has a long subtitle}

In the cases, I envision, all you are doing with \nomarking is hiding 
the subtitle, which seems less than ideal.  Indeed, if you look at most 
books and article, the title in the headers omits the subtitle.

Also, per earlier comments, DocBook has a subtitle structure, so it 
becomes easier to map that construct, and thus to customize output.

Bruce

Re: \nomarking without dots?

[Adam Lindsay]

I believe Bruce means "sub-heading" structure... subdividing the text in
a given heading to give similar effects to \nomarking.

I must say, I would find that very useful--it's what I first had in mind
when I asked about \nomarking. My user currently has a habit of writing
long, two-part chapter headings. I'd like to use structural markup, but
currently I'm having her mark the titles manually, like:
{{\bf Perceptual Dissimilarity and Verbal Attribute Ratings of Oboe Tones I:}
  an investigation of tones at different pitch and dynamic levels}

In one schema for document structure, the bold bit is the "title", and
the rest is a "subtitle". Perhaps more ConTeXtig to call them heading and
subheading?

Right. Bruce has an answer now, so I'll send this.

adam

Hans Hagen said this at Wed, 15 Jan 2003 18:26:25 +0100:

>At 12:08 PM 1/15/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>And can we get a subtitle structure so this is unnecessary?  :-)
>
>
>i'm lost, what do you mean with subtitle?
>
>Hans
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                                   Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE | pragma@wxs.nl
>                       Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
>  tel: +31 (0)38 477 53 69 | fax: +31 (0)38 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                        information: http://www.pragma-ade.com/roadmap.pdf
>                     documentation: http://www.pragma-ade.com/showcase.pdf
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>ntg-context mailing list
>ntg-context@ntg.nl
>http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 Adam T. Lindsay                      atl@comp.lancs.ac.uk
 Computing Dept, Lancaster University   +44(0)1524/594.537
 Lancaster, LA1 4YR, UK             Fax:+44(0)1524/593.608
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: \nomarking without dots?

[Hraban]

>>> And can we get a subtitle structure so this is unnecessary?  :-)
>
> Why do you need to hide part of a title?  It varies, but one common 
> scenario is this:
> Here is a somewhat long title: this also has a long subtitle
> My point -- which Adam quoted in his original note -- was that I ought 
> to be able to do this:
> \title{Here is a somewhat long title}
> \subtitle{this also has a long subtitle}

Stop! Don't mix these two requirements!

A sample from the book I'm just setting (about the UNO):

\Titel{Der Millenniumsgipfel 2000\NurLang{ -- \crlf Aufbruch in eine 
neue Ära}}%
{Globalisierung braucht Kooperation statt Konfrontation}

with

\def\NurLang#1{\nomarking{\nolist{#1}}}
\def\Untertitel#1{\blank[3pt]{\ss\bf #1}\blank}
\def\Titel#1#2{\chapter{#1}\Untertitel{#2}}

As you can imagine, my "Untertitel" (subtitle) is set somewhat smaller 
than the "Titel" (chapter), that's an optical structure.
Nevertheless I must truncate the main title for the header line and the 
t.o.c.


Grüßlis vom Hraban!
-- 
www.fiee.net/texnique/
www.ramm.ch/context/

Re: \nomarking without dots?

[Adam Lindsay]

I believe Hraban said this around Wed, 15 Jan 2003:

>> My point -- which Adam quoted in his original note -- was that I ought 
>> to be able to do this:
>> \title{Here is a somewhat long title}
>> \subtitle{this also has a long subtitle}
>
>Stop! Don't mix these two requirements!

Good point.

>As you can imagine, my "Untertitel" (subtitle) is set somewhat smaller 
>than the "Titel" (chapter), that's an optical structure.
>Nevertheless I must truncate the main title for the header line and the 
>t.o.c.

Ah, true. But the point is that if there is a high-level structure, it
should (at the least) include options for both the \nomarking as well as
optical layout. It could be a very useful shortcut to use the structured
markup to truncate the Untertitel in marks and lists. 

The requirements shouldn't be mixed, you're right, but they could live
side-by-side in a markup structure.

adam


--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
 Adam Lindsay                  +44(0)1524 594 537
 atl@comp.lancs.ac.uk
 http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/computing/users/atl/
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=