On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 10:45:51AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: > On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 10:19:16AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bj�nnes wrote: > > And why won't the validate be able to take care of this? > > > > "If any math construct is used that implies AMS > > turn AMS on > > unless AMS is turned explictly off" > > > > And if the user turns AMS off, he is on his own and must do to the > > preamble what is necessary. > > We could do it like that. My contraints are "the user should be able to > override the validation guesses" and "one button is enough".
If I may stick my oar in, I side with Andre on this one. The kind of user who is likely to break validate is the user who knows why and go into the document dialog and deselect "Use AMS Math". "Suppress AMS Math" just seems very weird to me. And if it reduces code complexity, why on earth not ? How strange that it is Andre arguing against "theoretical correctness" this time ! regards john -- Support the project - http://www.gtonline.net/private/mapp/project/
