This issue serves to record my current thinking on the issue of legend elements, @fatteneder you were also asking if something had been written down already, so here's a start.

Intro

When creating a Legend, there are different ways to specify the legend elements for a single entry:

• by referencing a plot object, which then has legendelements() called on it
• by directly creating a MarkerElement, LineElement, PolyElement or a vector of those

For legendelements() some overloads for specific plot types exist (Lines, LineSegments, Scatter, Poly, Violin, BoxPlot, CrossBar, Density, Band). If a plot type has no overload, the algorithm traverses all child plots and stacks their legendelements. This way, for example some custom recipe that uses a Band with Lines on top would by default have a somewhat reasonable legend marker instead of erroring.

When a legend element is created from a plot, certain visual attributes like color, markersize and marker for a MarkerElement are copied directly from the plot element.

Problems

Some problems have appeared with the current approach:

• It's impossible to override settings derived from plot objects. If a Scatter plot is fed to Legend, the markersize in the legend will always be exactly that of the plot. This is the most common request for overrides , because scatter markers in the plot are usually smaller than would be appropriate for the legend marker.
• It's impossible to easily create multiple markers / entries for a single plot. This is a common request when a single plot uses categorical colors via an array. For example, the simplest case would be a vector of zeros and ones colored black and white. Instead of a colorbar, most people prefer a legend with two entries, for example "True" and "False".
  • There is currently a relatively hacky workaround for Series where the child parts of this plot are presented via get_plots overload as single plots to the Legend, but this approach only works because there are actually multiple plots inside Series which usually isn't the case with array-colored plots.

Design goals

The new system should cover these points ideally

• Simple interface for the most common cases, without unnecessary boilerplate
• Some kind of fallback logic for unregistered plot types
• Single entry override mechanism to, for example increase marker size for a Scatter legend
• Ideally a Legend-wide override mechanism, to choose via Theme whether all MarkerElements should have manually picked marker sizes or pick them from the plots they belong to. At least I can imagine it's annoying overriding the same setting many times.
• Simple way to assign multiple legend elements to one plot, so some multi-part value for the label keyword rather than just a String

Design ideas

One way to address both override mechanism and multi-entries is to enhance the functionality of the label keyword. (Maybe it would have to be renamed to legend if it does more in the future).

This is an idea for a multi-entry label keyword. The way to make each entry actually visually distinct is to pass override values for specific attributes that the legend element normally copies from the plot. In this case it would be the color, which can't be copied if it is array-valued as a single MarkerElement cannot have multiple colors.

scatter(rand(Bool, 100), label = [
    "True" => (; color = 1),
    "False" => (; color = 0)
])

Note that this syntax is tied to this PR #2622 because it would allow to copy colormap and colorrange from an array-colored plot and then pick one of the colors via a scalar.

Overriding a value for a single entry would work just the same, for example to increase the markersize to make it legible:

scatter(..., markersize = 5, label = "Scatter Plot" => (; markersize = 30))

The problem with this idea is that it clashes with the composition fallback mechanism.

If an override keyword like color or markersize refers to an attribute of the plot, then the user would have to know the attributes used in the internal components of the recipe they make a legend entry of. For example, a recipe might have custom_markersize as an attribute but internally the Scatter plot would use markersize. But the user would not know that unless they were reading the source code.

If however the keyword refers to an attribute of the legend element itself, like for the MarkerElement invoked by Scatter, this would clash with cases where multiple similar Elements are layered on top of each other. The user would not be able to say which of two LineElements for example should have an increased line width.

These concerns might seem a bit hypothetical as usually legend elements don't get super complex and a layering of two or more MarkerElements would probably not be readable anyway, but I'd still prefer if the design didn't leave this ugly tail of corner cases but instead would error more and force the users to make clear decisions in cases of ambiguity.

One more problem with the variant of specifying the attribute as it is used in the plot object, is that some aspects of the legend element will not map to the plot object at all. For example, the shape of the line used in a LineElement is not copied from a Lines plot (as there is no such attribute) so it would not be overrideable if only plot object keywords could be specified.

Therefore, I tend to prefer the second option, where keywords related to MarkerElement, LineElement and PolyElement (and maybe some future additions to that list) are used. I think I already tried to make the set of attribute names for these three types disjoint (linecolor and markercolor instead of two times just color when looking at MarkerElement vs LineElement for example), but if the names are not disjoint sets then the syntax must allow to clarify which type of element is meant when overriding. Just color would be ambiguous if all three types had this.

For plot objects that should automatically generate multiple legend entries, instead of overloading get_plots it might make more sense to add something like get_label (or get_legend in case of a rename) which could return a vector of label strings plus settings as shown above if multiple entries are desired.