[texhax] LaTeX : Section opening recto, verso blank

[Uwe Lück]

As a "counterpart" to the final summary below, I start with my own summary, 
may be better than those dialogs spanning screens:

1. My earlier suggestion \titlceclass{\section}{page} was wrong, due to my 
misunderstanding of `counterpart', obsolete. I recommend Phil's original 
\titleclass{\section}{top} instead.

2. If the additional \null that I suggested earlier really generates empty 
pages no. 1 etc., replace it by \ifnum\value{page}>1\null\fi or so ...

-- Uwe.


At 21:10 15.03.09, Philip TAYLOR wrote:
>Uwe Lück wrote:
>
>>Ah, sorry, I misunderstood `counterpart', and I overlooked the 
>>explanations `finished verso' and `two blank pages':
>
>>I understood `counterpart' as `verso of starting folio' (cf. thread 
>>identifier). And when I started the present reply, I thought 
>>`counterpart' meant `end of the same section'. OK, I am sticking to 
>>`counterpart' as `opposite page'.
>
>Yes, that was what I meant by "verso counterpart" : the facing
>(verso) page.
>
>>So just add \null right before \LaTeXcleardoublepage.
>
>That gives me unwanted pages at start of document.
>
>>1b. To get the "empty indeed" variant of \cleardoublepage, titlesec 
>>offers option `clearempty'. There also is package `emptypage' to the same 
>>effect without titlesec. But you are right, both packages miss 
>>\columnseprule = 0pt (maybe because \columnseprule = 0pt is standard anyway).
>
>Well, as neither of these solve the problem of the rule,
>I may as well roll my own, because I need the rule
>problem solved !
>
>>1c. One might want to keep the "weak" \cleardoublepage for "subsections" 
>>and give a new name to your variant, e.g. \cleardoublepageskiponepage 
>>(but this conflicts with my proposal below).
>
>Ah, but I don't yet have a variant that solves the
>problem : the cleardoublepage of mine simply
>does what the original should have done -- ensures
>that the verso page is completely blank, /unless/
>that page contains real typesettable content.  And
>it is that latter problem that is what this thread
>is about : how, if the verso page contains real
>typesettable content, to ensure that the next section
>start not just recto, but recto+2, so that the verso
>counterpart of the opening section page is blank.
>
>>The thread identifier and
>
>Don't understand this line at all :-(
>
>>still indicate that you want to have chapter style for sections. And I 
>>recommend the "top" designation indeed:
>
>Right, that is what I already have; but in your earlier
>message, you recommended "page" ...
>
>>It seems to me that I understand titlesec better here than you, although 
>>I didn't know what it does until yesterday.
>
>I am very happy to believe that, since I understand almost
>nothing about LaTeX and its packages at all ...
>
>>With
>>     \titleclass{\section}{top}
>>you don't need \cleardoublepage in \Section, because this \titleclass 
>>declaration makes \section execute \doubleclearpage! Seen from code and 
>>tested! This is what \titleclass has been made for!
>>This was the heart of my previous message:
>
>Right, I will try that next (but see note below, in closing summary).
>
>>At 08:47 15.03.09, Uwe Lück wrote:
>>>With such a declaration, you needn't care any more about \clear...
>>(where I skipped the "empty" matter because it hadn't been raised yet).
>
>Confused : not sure what you are saying here ...  Does this refer
>to my '"page" not only generates an "opening chapter style" page' ?
>
>Anyhow, a resume of where we are, after incorporating your suggestions :
>
>Adding \null just before \LaTeXcleardoublepage causes unwanted
>blank pages at start of document.
>
>\cleardoublepage in the definition of \Section was indeed
>an error, but it does need an explicit \clearpage, otherwise
>\sectiontype is set too soon and affects the running head
>of the current page (the running head should change
>only as the new section starts).
>
>Using titleclass "page" gives me content-free opening
>section pages; I need opening section pages to have
>content below the heading.
>
>Many thanks for all your help, Uwe, but as you can
>see, we're clearly not there yet !
>
>** Phil.