Uwe Stöhr wrote: > What's the difference for the user? Isn't the appearance the only important > thing? So when we add it to the Document menu, we fulfill our guidelines to > treat \appendix and \*matter the same way. It shouldn't be important what > technical solution we choose to insert \*matter to the LaTeX output and to > the TOC.
The user view is not everything. For instance, how do you want to check that *matter and *appendix are only inserted once per document with an inset approach? How do you want to assure that they are always inserted _between_ paragraphs (not inside one of them)? How do you want to add further checks that are necessary for a good UI, for instance, only allow a mainmatter if there's actually a frontmatter, don't allow backmatter before frontmatter, etc. Even if this is probably possible with the inset solution using some weird hacks, the necessity of the hacks shows that inset is just not the right thing for this. > I'm arguing because the current \appendix implementation is in my opinion > not a good one and when \appendix cleaned up, we should consider to change > this also to an inset. Why? Because of the borders? These are independent of the implementation. > (Btw. when you write plain LaTeX using Kile etc., you also only see > \*matter in your document, so this is the same as for \foot and the like. > OK, perhaps not the best example, but you see what I mean.) No, not a good example. This is markup, not graphical represantation. Jürgen
