[Tugindia] so many style files

[Radhakrishnan CV]

>>>>> "Manjusha" == Bhaskaracharya Pratishthana <bhaskara_p at vsnl.com> writes:

    Manjusha> Hi all, I have a question.  Which one is better : 1. Use
    Manjusha> so many style files.  2. Use limited style files and
    Manjusha> obtained the effect.

    Manjusha> e.g one can use url style file just to change style for
    Manjusha> url in text doc.s but we can achive same effect just by
    Manjusha> \verb| name of the url|

Changing the URL to \ttfamily is not the only purpose of url.sty. It
can also break a lengthy URL if if occurs at line end, which is a
non-trivial job to do automatically. Also you can change the size, and
family of font used for URL's. If you can write a macro that can do
all the above, surely using url.sty is a overkill. 

Generally, people are vary of writing a macro, so they depend upon
readily available packages.

    Manjusha> I always have a feeling that we are just using style
    Manjusha> files, as they are there.

    Manjusha> Is there any hidden part of adding style file in the
    Manjusha> document?  

The packages can be included while generating your latex.fmt which
means all those packages are always available by default without
loading in the preamble of your document. But that has the side effect
of your document loosing portability.

Alternatively, you might write a custom package where you can load all
the frequently used packages with the command:

  \RequirePackage[<options>]{<package name>}

and use this package always, which would save you a lot of keying
every time you create a document.

    Manjusha> Am I missing some advantages of the style files?  

You will, if you hate to read the documentation of the package.

    Manjusha> Should we always think any tex document as it can be
    Manjusha> converted to xml document and for that .sty file
    Manjusha> provides any structural advantages?

Yes and No. This largely depend on the methodology of your
translation. 

Best

Radhakrishnan