Difference between revisions of "Talk:Document Titles"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m |
(Comments addressed; thanks!) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
* Someone heavily complained about the lack of <code>\abstract</code> command in ConTeXt. I spent hard time trying to explain him that not everyone would like to use the standard layout of the abstract or another three packages to setup this layout, but maybe this page is just perfect to define an additional LaTeX-like <code>\abstract</code> command as well. | * Someone heavily complained about the lack of <code>\abstract</code> command in ConTeXt. I spent hard time trying to explain him that not everyone would like to use the standard layout of the abstract or another three packages to setup this layout, but maybe this page is just perfect to define an additional LaTeX-like <code>\abstract</code> command as well. | ||
--[[User:Mojca Miklavec|Mojca]] | --[[User:Mojca Miklavec|Mojca]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | It completely overrides and erases the existing <code>\title</code> command. Which is not a good thing; I'll correct that! As for the abstract -- indeed, that would be a good thing to cover. I'll write up a page for that -- I think it should probably be on a separate page, so they don't get too long, but the idea is very similar. | ||
| + | |||
| + | --[[User:Brooks|Brooks]] 01:39, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 01:41, 4 September 2005
- How is this
\titleinterfering with the \title command deined in ConTeXt? - Someone heavily complained about the lack of
\abstractcommand in ConTeXt. I spent hard time trying to explain him that not everyone would like to use the standard layout of the abstract or another three packages to setup this layout, but maybe this page is just perfect to define an additional LaTeX-like\abstractcommand as well.
--Mojca
It completely overrides and erases the existing \title command. Which is not a good thing; I'll correct that! As for the abstract -- indeed, that would be a good thing to cover. I'll write up a page for that -- I think it should probably be on a separate page, so they don't get too long, but the idea is very similar.
--Brooks 01:39, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)
