Design discussion: headings of mathematical blocks

[Rob Beezer]

Right now a #theorem can have #title and a #creator.

While working on transcoding an old survey article of mine, there are citations
(#xref) to the bibliography on several re-stated Theorems (since it is a
survey!, and they are not mine).

My assistant put the #xref into the #title. We allow that. But we neuter the
#xref as a live link and just leave its text - becauae titles can be tricky.
And one conversion to PDF totally mangled these anyway.

Feels like we need an element to hold one, or more, #xref.

* What to call it?

* How should all this look?

A. Theorem 5.4 FTC. (Newton, [3, p. 12])

B. Theorem 5.4 (Newton, [3, p. 12]). FTC.

C. Theorem 5.4 (FTC, Newton, [3, p. 12]).

I guess that boils down to where does the #title go? And any missing info is
just absent from the above layout. Spoiler, we do B right now.

* There is a request, and an open PR to have an #xref inside #creator. I never
got a good justification for what that #xref was for, and I was adverse to
changing the schema for #creator. While th esuggestion here is to reference the
origin of the #theorem, it could well be used, i would guess to reference the
origin of the creator. Maybe #origins is the element we need?

* I would think #creator should be expanded from use on theorem-like, to
definition-like and axiom-like. "Mathematical" blocks.

* The original motivation for this is recorded at

https://github.com/PreTeXtBook/pretext/issues/3207

but I don't think it is a great read - it was written by my transcoding
assistant with an intended audience of my coding assistant.

Comments and suggestions encouraged.

Rob

[Oscar Levin]

The PR to add xref to creator was mine, in response to feedback that validation was flagging it as incorrect (even though in HTML at least it worked as expected).  I assumed this was just an oversight, since it seems so obvious to me (and the requester) that when presenting a theorem and giving credit to the original author, you would give them credit and cite the original paper as part of giving them the credit.  So inside #creator (unless there was a #credit, which would also be reasonable).  In fact, I don't really see why you would put an xref in a title instead.  

I believe LaTeX uses the same markup for both creator and title; the optional argument after \begin{theorem}.

Layout wise, I think A looks best.

How will this interact with the Citation Stylesheet bibliography work? 

[Rob Beezer]

Dear Oscar,

Thanks for the reply. I had not forgotten this one, but it also had not been
bubbling up my to-do list. Now, I'm sorta glad it sat for a bit.

I was thinking the #xref might have been to some biographical/historical info
about the creator. A cross-reference to the original paper sounds much better,
but to me, it seems out-of-place within #creator. And the schema for #creator
was right/intentional - just text, a person's name, etc.

AI was reading a typeset PDF article with references in the heading, and could
only figure out to sneak an #xref into the #title. Not bad, but not right,
either. So, no suggestion from here that they belong in the #title!

So we do need a place for some #xref relating to the #theorem (and friends).

theorem
title
creator
origins
xref
xref
xref

Those #xref could point to the #references and resolve to a citation of a paper
(holding a URL perhaps), or it could point to a biographical or historical aside
with details about the creator. Sort of dual-purpose, but I think that would
work out OK. I don't see any problem with CSL, an #xref into the #references
doesn't need to be any different here than elsewhere, I think? Maybe I'm
missing something.

This lets us control the formatting (A, B, C) and have a consistent treatment,
rather than

> the optional argument after \begin{theorem}

I should have started a (long) list of LaTeX weaknesses long ago.

Nitty-gritty:

I do like A (why I wrote it first?), but B is what we have now. If we go with
A, then "FTC." and "(Newton)" are going to switch places for folks. That might
be a surprise to some, but I think it is within our remit to do this sort of
thing. Content is unchanged.

Follow-up with comments, and if ready, clearance to go to work.

Rob

> https://github.com/PreTeXtBook/pretext/issues/3207 <https://github.com/
> PreTeXtBook/pretext/issues/3207>

>
> but I don't think it is a great read - it was written by my transcoding
> assistant with an intended audience of my coding assistant.
>
> Comments and suggestions encouraged.
>
> Rob
>
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "PreTeXt development" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
> to pretext-dev...@googlegroups.com <mailto:pretext-
> dev+uns...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pretext-dev/
> b2639b39-4d03-4656-af8d-22a0e99d6e14n%40googlegroups.com <https://
> groups.google.com/d/msgid/pretext-dev/b2639b39-4d03-4656-
> af8d-22a0e99d6e14n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.