5

The document l2tabu gives overview about the sins in latex: obsolete commands, packages, bad style.

However this document in it's most recent (german) Version is from 2011, the last translated english version even from 2007.

  • Are there new sins to consider?
  • which packages also have been succeeded by newer alternatives
  • Are there people who might help to translate those documents into other languages?

Links:

I think these documents are very helpful for beginners considering the lots of ancient solutions to many problems and should therefore be updated regularly.

ideas so far:

maybe one issue per answer is a good approach

Community
  • 1
MaxNoe
  • 6,136
  • Although I answered already: Your question will provoke opinion-based answers (see mine ;-)) –  Jan 13 '15 at 21:42
  • 1
    I know ;) but I think it's worth a try. – MaxNoe Jan 13 '15 at 21:43
  • Well, there is a certain level of agreement what should be done/not done in LaTeX –  Jan 13 '15 at 21:53
  • 2
    Perhaps a new document should be created, but I thought that this one was supposed to specifically reflect changes to core LaTeX. As such, I think it is useful to keep it focused on core-2e-based sins. It would be easy to turn it into a generic bunch-of-recommendations, but then it would be less useful. It is concerned with *cardinal 2e sins* and not intended, as I understand it, as a general list of Bad Things To Do in LaTeX documents, with additional information thrown in. It should be focused on LaTeX and not discuss contributed packages or it will become too hard to maintain. – cfr Jan 13 '15 at 22:13
  • @cfr: How about the package tabu guide ? ;-) –  Jan 13 '15 at 22:26
  • There should be a clear hierachy, like cardinal sins, don'ts, recommendations – MaxNoe Jan 13 '15 at 22:28
  • @ChristianHupfer What about it? – cfr Jan 13 '15 at 22:46
  • 1
    I think he supposes to create a new document with this name ;) – MaxNoe Jan 13 '15 at 22:48
  • @cfr: Sorry, typical typo of mine: What about a package tabu guide ;-) –  Jan 13 '15 at 22:48
  • @MaxNoe: Exactly! –  Jan 13 '15 at 22:49
  • @ChristianHupfer Who would undertake to maintain such a monster? ;) – cfr Jan 13 '15 at 22:52
  • @cfr: Er... you? :) –  Jan 13 '15 at 22:53
  • The community. Make it open, e.g. on github. – MaxNoe Jan 13 '15 at 22:54
  • 1
    @ChristianHupfer Never have I regretted so much my inability to down-vote comments :(. – cfr Jan 13 '15 at 22:58
  • @MaxNoe But then it would not make it into, for example, TeX Live. – cfr Jan 13 '15 at 22:59
  • Why not? Can a package on ctan not be a fork of a github repo? – MaxNoe Jan 13 '15 at 23:00
  • @MaxNoe: No, there should be a clear list of authors/maintainers. If everybody is enabled to fiddle around in a document, it's most likely rejected –  Jan 13 '15 at 23:02
  • That's not the case. One would have a few maintainers. But a sophisticated system for others to participate, issue handling, pull requests etc. – MaxNoe Jan 13 '15 at 23:04
  • Actually I like the idea of such a 'package tabu guide' (not because it's my idea (if at all, I don't know)) –  Jan 13 '15 at 23:06
  • The biggest tabu at the moment might be not to load fixltx2e. – Johannes_B Jan 26 '15 at 16:02
  • Isn't the whole L3 dev going on on github? Will pushed some stuff a few hours ago. – Johannes_B Jan 26 '15 at 16:06

1 Answers1

2

The l2tabu is a collection of 'don't do that' and from a personal point of view, I agree, that \(...\) is a good example which should be added, as a recommendation to replace $...$ math mode.

I disagree on

  • scrpage2 (the change is too recent, in my point of view.)

  • UTF8 --> as general input encoding?

  • Lua- and XeTeX ... should be a taboo or a general recommendation?

  • Tex Gyre fonts are an addition, there is no need to defy the older style of fonts.

Possible additions:

  • Not using starred structure commands (\chapter* ... etc.) in conjunction with forcing them to appear in the TOC.
  • Newer code/packages should be written with xparse and its \NewDocumentCommand etc. features instead of \@ifnextchar[ stuff for macros with optional arguments
  • For comparisons the \if.... commands from etoolbox are cleaner (personal opinion) than ifthen
  • Use xstring package for string manipulations
  • titlesec and KOMA - classes/packages should not be used together
  • cleveref is a package that should be loaded after hyperref
  • Concerning xe/luatex: mention them in the encoding/font section – MaxNoe Jan 13 '15 at 21:35
  • I thought that the document was aimed at users rather than package authors, so I'm not sure that xparse, etoolbox or xstring really fit. Also, I had understood that $...$ is fine - only $$...$$ should be avoided. I don't think this kind of document can possibly hope to cover the complex issues of package loading order or not-actually-conflicting-but-don't-combine packages. There are just too many of these cases. What is wrong with using starred structure commands? (Genuine question - I'm not saying there isn't something, but I use these all the time.) – cfr Jan 13 '15 at 22:08
  • @cfr: You are right about the etoolbox etc. packages --> they are used by package/class authors mostly, but could be applied by 'normal' users of course. The statement about starred structures command is too short in my answer... I observed many questions about adding starred chapters to the TOC etc, causing 'problems' –  Jan 13 '15 at 22:11
  • Oh, right. Well, that's true. But saying they shouldn't be used in general would be wrong, I think. Unless there is a better way of producing unnumbered parts which you don't want in the ToC. (I rarely produce ToCs despite my current preoccupation with them.) – cfr Jan 13 '15 at 22:16