On 07/13/2010 02:08 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Richard Heck wrote:
One idea is to mark such classes with an asterisk, as in the attached
patch and screenshot. Comments? Other ideas?
I think we had an asterisk at first and then changed it to the current text,
because people found th
On 07/13/2010 09:41 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Liviu Andronic wrote:
Why not simply: 'missing latex classes'
because there's also DocBook and it could also be missing style files.
or 'missing dependencies'?
this is a bit vague, IMHO.
The other thing is that there
Liviu Andronic wrote:
> Why not simply: 'missing latex classes'
because there's also DocBook and it could also be missing style files.
> or 'missing dependencies'?
this is a bit vague, IMHO.
Jürgen
Why not simply: 'missing latex classes' or 'missing dependencies'?
Liviu
On 7/13/10, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Richard Heck wrote:
>> One idea is to mark such classes with an asterisk, as in the attached
>> patch and screenshot. Comments? Other ideas?
>
> I think we had an asterisk at first and
Richard Heck wrote:
> One idea is to mark such classes with an asterisk, as in the attached
> patch and screenshot. Comments? Other ideas?
I think we had an asterisk at first and then changed it to the current text,
because people found the asterisk not informative enough.
If you go for he aste
lacks some packages" would be
more on point than "Unavailable". What threw me was the fact that the
unavailable classes are listed separately. Personally, I'd prefer
colors or font shapes and weights: green (bold) = ready to go, yellow
(plain text) = lacking some packages, and red (italic) = cannot process.
<>
