Headers, footers and fancyhdr

[josephwright]

Implementing headers and footers, I'm struck that that there is overlap with what fancyhdr (particularly for footers). I suspect the overlap is not sufficient to just load-and-use fancyhdr, but I want to check others see it the same way.

Thoughts?

[samcarter]

Advantage fanchdr would be that it can deal well with different page styles, e.g. for section pages.

By default fancyhdr headers and footers have the width of the textarea. I don't know from the top of my head, how easy full page width headers/footers would be. Might be worth checking.

[josephwright]

Advantage fanchdr would be that it can deal well with different page styles, e.g. for section pages.

That's not really an issue I think: we can just set a pagestyle (framestyle) as needed - in particular for presentations a 'section page' is a nice clear construct.

By default fancyhdr headers and footers have the width of the textarea. I don't know from the top of my head, how easy full page width headers/footers would be. Might be worth checking.

Looks like it would be a bit of a hack - there's no direct support for \paperwidth use. So I think that alone means it's probably less desirable.

[cfr42]

It's out-of-the-box to adjust them to extend beyond the text area, though. I don't usually want the paper width, but I often want headers, especially, to exceed the text width.

This is not a push for fancyhdr, though I happen to like it.

[Skillmon]

There are circumstances in which the headers/footers created by fancyhdr jump. I'm not sure why exactly that happens but saw cases. In every case I encountered so far it was fixable by using scrlayer-scrpage instead. This is no push for using that instead, more a "I don't trust fancyhdr so don't use it".

[josephwright]

I've never come across that, but I'm happy to take your word for it. I'm not asking as a push to use fancyhdr, more that I want to be looking for places we should be using 'standard' methods if they cover what we need (e.g. using geometry and more standard page layout compared with beamer). As I've already indicated, my feeling is that fancyhdr isn't quite right for us - though I do wonder about having L/C/R 'zones' at least for the footer.

[cfr42]

You mean jumps when there is nothing else wrong?

[Skillmon]

I mean that the contents don't always end up on the same spot but jump around a tiny bit between pages. Often it's just a single page affected, and as I said, I have no idea what's causing it since I never investigated.

[Skillmon]

One such case (though per comment by mbert this should be fixed in recent versions): https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/457051/bottom-margin-is-different-on-even-and-odd-page/457195#457195:

[cfr42]

One such case (though per comment by mbert this should be fixed in recent versions): https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/457051/bottom-margin-is-different-on-even-and-odd-page/457195#457195:

Sorry, but it isn't fancyhdr's fault if people don't pay attention to its warnings. This is why I said 'if nothing else is wrong'. It is covered in the documentation and the package writes warnings to the log/console when headheight is too small for the defined header. If you ignore those warnings, inconsistencies are expected. But note that geometry is also complaining about the layout there, so by the same logic, you should object to geometry, too.

Note that I tested with TL 2018 on Overleaf. So I have no idea what is supposed to have been 'fixed'.

https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/740316/

I'm not affiliated with the Fancyhdr Promotional Board and the luxury cruises they fail to send me on in no way influenced this comment.

[josephwright]

I think for the present we seem happy to stick as we are - but like many other things, subject to change!