1-Oct-1997 15:37:25-GMT,2813;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA05512 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 09:37:21 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA07045; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 17:12:55 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 206661 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 17:12:52 +0200 Received: from sarah.albany.edu (sarah.albany.edu [169.226.1.103]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA07035 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 17:12:46 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from fenris.math.albany.edu (fenris.math.albany.edu [169.226.23.39]) by sarah.albany.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA08892 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 11:11:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mark@localhost) by fenris.math.albany.edu (8.8.4/8.8.3) id LAA15137 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 11:11:31 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text Message-ID: <199710011511.LAA15137@fenris.math.albany.edu> Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 11:11:31 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Mark Steinberger Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <97100115382274@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> from "Phillip Helbig" at Oct 1, 97 03:38:22 pm One very useful feature for electronic journals would be the possibility of putting a separate table of contents in each chapter of the standard book or report style. The chapters could then be used for separate articles in an issue. The motivation for tables of contents is hyperlinks: A hyperlinked table of contents makes an article more accessible when read electronically. Would this be a reasonable request to make of the latex project? --Mark -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Steinberger | http://math.albany.edu:8800/~mark Dept. of Math. & Stat | SUNY at Albany | Albany, NY 12222 | Editor in Chief, New York Journal of Mathematics mark@sarah.albany.edu | http://nyjm.albany.edu:8000/nyjm.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-Oct-1997 15:38:54-GMT,12857;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA05544 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 09:38:50 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA05728; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 16:55:28 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 206648 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 16:55:25 +0200 Received: from multivac (multivac.jb.man.ac.uk [130.88.24.128]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA05711 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 16:55:18 +0200 (MET DST) X-VMS-To: LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE X-VMS-Cc: HELBIG Message-ID: <97100115382274@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 15:38:22 GMT Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Phillip Helbig Subject: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L I would like to get some hopefully productive discussion going. Help improve LaTeX macro packages for scientific journals and publishers: http://multivac.jb.man.ac.uk:8000/latex-campaign/campaign.html This page is itself just an attempt to generate some attention (and contains, among other things, a link to the text after my .sig) and hopefully will evolve into something more useful. Of course I'm very interested in similar activities elsewhere! -- Phillip Helbig Email ... helbig@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories Tel. ..... +44 1477 571 321 (ext. 297) Jodrell Bank Fax ................. +44 1477 571 618 Macclesfield Telex ................. 36149 JODREL G UK-Cheshire SK11 9DL Web .... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pjh/ My opinions are not necessarily those of NRAL or the University of Manchester. =============================================================================== ====================================================================== ====================================================================== The need for a rapid upgrade and standardisation of LaTeX macros for the preparation of scientific manuscripts. ====================================================================== ====================================================================== During the last several years, a major change has taken place in the way that manuscripts are prepared for many scientific journals and books: TeX, usually in the guise of LaTeX, has become the form in which manuscripts are written. This has many advantages, too many to detail here, and few if any disadvantages. It is definitely a practice which should continue well into the future. One major advantage is the time saved by the authors (and potentially by the publishers as well, depending on how they make use of TeX internally; this is of no concern here, however), but if the present state persists, time spent doing unnecessary things will increase and further progress will be halted. There are two major problems, which I will discuss in turn. The first, and most serious, is the fact that many journals and publishers still use macros based on LaTeX2.09, rather than the modern LaTeX2e, which has been in existence since the middle of 1994. The second is the useless incompatibility of various macros. LaTeX2e offers many useful advantages over LaTeX2.09, the previous stable version. This includes many things of particular reference to the area of using macros to prepare manuscripts to be published elsewhere, such as changes in the way fonts are selected and the inclusion of graphics. There have also been changes in the internal structure of LaTeX, in particular to facilitate the construction of packages, use of macros etc so it is particularly ironic that this has been neglected by the many of the providers of macros. Although LaTeX2e can process LaTeX2.09 documents, this so-called compatibility mode is intended EXCLUSIVELY for documents which contain NO new LaTeX features. Thus, the continued use of outdated macros, style files etc presents the writer of the manuscript---typically the author himself whose main concern is not (or at least should not be) the preparation of manuscripts but rather the production of their content---with a serious dilemma. Either not to learn new LaTeX features, which could considerably improve efficiency, remaining intellectually frozen with an outdated and imperfect LaTeX mindset, or else to constantly switch between LaTeX2.09 and LaTeX2e. Both are obviously bad. Since most authors have their own macros as well (the use of which incidentally is greatly improved in LaTeX2e), they must either not use them with one of the versions of LaTeX or maintain two sets of macros. This problem is also related to the other problem, which I will discuss below, but first I discuss the second problem on its own. Obviously, and with good reason, various journals and publishers like to have their own look and feel. LaTeX presents an ideal manner in which this can be achieved, with the author concentrating on content rather than presentation. There are two basic ways in which this can be achieved. One is by redefining LaTeX commands, such as to alter the manner in which a section title appears. This presents no problems, as the author need only be concerned with where to begin a section, and not with the appearance of the manuscript. Another method, sometimes necessary as not everything can be achieved merely be redifinitions, is to introduce new commands. There are three potential problems with this. The first is that the author must learn additional commands, whose use moreover is usually less well-documented and less well-tested than the standard LaTeX commands. This places an additional burden on the author, although it is necessary to some degree. The second problem is that these commands can conflict with the authors own commands (unless they are given very peculiar names, which introduces disadvantages of its own); every time a new set of macros is used, there is the potential need for the author to revise his own. Thirdly, there is the problem of different macro sets using different commands to accomplish the same thing, or using the same command (perhaps with (different) options in one case) to accomplish different tasks. ALL THREE of these problems would disappear if there were a COMMON set of journal and publisher macros, distributed with the standard LaTeX distribution, to which all journals and publishers would adhere. Flexibility in the definition of these commands would still allow---in fact, would encourage---each individual macro package to redefine them to achieve a unique look and feel. It is important to realise that parts of manuscripts---especially figures, tables and reference lists---are recycled. Electronic preparation of manuscripts has made this much easier, and much less time is wasted. Also, it sometimes happens, for various reasons, that a manuscript is submitted to a different journal or publisher than that which was originally intended. Ideally, the author of the manuscript should only have to change ONE line in the manuscript, namely that specifying the macro package used. (I am talking about format and appearance here; of course, submission somewhere else might well involve changes in content as well. The author should be concerned with content, not presentation.) An area related to additional commands (as opposed to redifinitions of standard commands) is that of different typographic conventions, such as the type style of foreign words, the use of periods in abbreviations, spelling etc. These can be handles efficiently by making all variable constructions commands which are defined appropriately by the appropriate macro package. This is especially relevant in the area of reference lists and, to a lesser extent, citations in the text. Fortunately, this problem can ALREADY be solved by the use of Patrick Daly's natbib.sty and custom-bib package. Since this is IDEALLY suited to the problem of variation in citations and references, it should actually be REQUIRED by all journals and publishers who use LaTeX at all. In principle, an author could construct his own set of meta-macros which would be appropriately defined for each macro package used. In fact, it was when considering this (after I upgraded from LaTeX2.09 to LaTeX2e and started to use BibTeX) that the thoughts leading to writing this text began. Besides the unnecessary work involved (it would be much easier for it to be done ONCE and made available to all), the fact that the construction of such meta-macros is MUCH easier in LaTeX2e led me to abandon any desire at all to support in any form any provider of macros still based on LaTeX2.09. What can be done about all of these problems? Some journals and publishers already support or even REQUIRE LaTeX2e, so there can be no question of there being any real reasons why this would not work for ALL journals and publishers. It might even be a good idea, when there are alternatives, to boycott journals which do not support (require?) LaTeX2e, sending manuscripts to the competition instead and a letter to the journal/publisher which otherwise would have been considered stating that until LaTeX2e is supported (required?) the author will not waste his valuable time mucking about with outdated macros. There should be a concerted effort, including at least the LaTeX3 team and LaTeX-knowledgeable representatives from ALL journals and publishers who use LaTeX, to construct a common set of additional commands AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. The current situation is so pitiful that I see no reason to wait until an almost-perfect version is attained; distribution with the normal LaTeX source, which is updated twice a year, seems like a good idea, with the first version coming AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Again, the distribution of this common set of additional journal/publisher commands with the normal LaTeX distribution is essential. As I mentioned above, the two problems are related. It would be a mistake for each macro package to be upgraded INDEPENDENTLY to LaTeX2e, with a view to harmonisation later, since a combined effort would save work and create better compatibility. Similarly, it would be a mistake to do the harmonisation in LaTeX2.09, since macros based on LaTeX2e will be different anyway and the writing of macro packages is much better organised in LaTeX2e. Thus, the two goals must be pursued simultaneously in a coordinated fashion. On a related topic, although most journals and publishers don't simply `print the PostScript file' but rather produce camera-ready copy, it would be highly desirable if the production of this camera-ready copy took place in a matter as similar as possible to the author's own manuscript production. For example, rather than submitting printouts of PostScript files, one should submit the files along with the TeX file, especially since the inclusion of graphics has now been standardised in LaTeX2e. Whatever method is used to turn the text into camera-ready copy can process the PostScript files as well. There should be no need to submit paper versions of manuscripts, except for reference (as opposed to production) purposes. In particular, the author should be able to depend on the figures being produced as in the accompanying reference version, that is at the same size (one- or two-column width, for example) and in the same aspect ratio. I have even heard of authors submitting figures on paper rather than electronically because in the former case it is less likely that the aspect ratio be changed or the figure printed in a size other than intended. (Of course, this depends on the reference version being correctly formatted, but this could be made a requirement for acceptance of the manuscript. Also, there might be the normal LaTeX changes in the position of floats etc if a different font is used and so on, but the manuscript should not depend on these anyway. However, the text and column widths are known to the author, so it should be possible and be encouraged to prepare the figures accordingly.) Help improve LaTeX macro packages for scientific journals and publishers: http://multivac.jb.man.ac.uk:8000/latex-campaign/campaign.html 1-Oct-1997 16:02:56-GMT,5357;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA06153 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 10:02:55 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA09377; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 17:36:48 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 206681 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 17:36:45 +0200 Received: from pillar.elsevier.co.uk (root@pillar.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.222.35]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA09368 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 17:36:42 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from snowdon.elsevier.co.uk (snowdon.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.197.164]) by pillar.elsevier.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA15285 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 16:36:28 +0100 (BST) Received: from SRAHTZ (actually host srahtz.elsevier.co.uk) by snowdon.elsevier.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Wed, 1 Oct 1997 16:35:59 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <97100115382274@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> X-Mailer: VM 6.33 under Emacs 19.34.6 Message-ID: <4739-Wed01Oct1997163539+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 16:35:39 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Sebastian Rahtz Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <97100115382274@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> > The need for a rapid upgrade and standardisation of LaTeX macros for > the preparation of scientific manuscripts. I strongly support the concept of extended standard markup, particularly for front matter. long overdue. but: > that manuscripts are prepared for many scientific journals and books: > TeX, usually in the guise of LaTeX, has become the form in which > manuscripts are written. This has many advantages, too many to detail i have said it ad nauseam, and i say it again; i work for the worlds largest STM publisher, and i can assure you that *here* - the great majority of MSS are not in LaTeX - LaTeX is not used internally for CRC except in special circumstances though that should not discourage you. in addition, i don't know of any publishing house which, if pressed, would not claim that SGML was their long-term data storage format, not LaTeX > Fortunately, this problem can ALREADY be solved by the use of Patrick > Daly's natbib.sty and custom-bib package. Since this is IDEALLY suited > to the problem of variation in citations and references, it should > actually be REQUIRED by all journals and publishers who use LaTeX at > all. hear, hear. natbib/custom-bib are awesome contributions to the LaTeX world > On a related topic, although most journals and publishers don't simply > `print the PostScript file' but rather produce camera-ready copy, we cannot be unusual in having a very high emphasis these days on getting an electronic form of the article, in a portable form, ie SGML. dont talk to me about latex2html.... what gets printed is a side issue, sometimes some of you concerns should be taken up with the *editor*, not the *publisher*. i think you are promoting (rightly) use of email as the *only* submission medium, for fast and efficient turnaround, and thats before it gets to the publisher (depending on the journal). > manuscript production. For example, rather than submitting printouts of > PostScript files, one should submit the files along with the TeX file, > especially since the inclusion of graphics has now been standardised in > LaTeX2e. Whatever method is used to turn the text into camera-ready > copy can process the PostScript files as well. There should be no need how many PostSCript files from random authors have you processed? clearly your success rate is considerably higher than mine! *please* dont suggest PostScript. its inventors, Adobe, have invested their authority and considerable research into the next generation language, PDF, who advantages so much outweigh the problems (in our world) that it seems (to me) madness not to espouse it. especially since we have a TeX that writes PDF directly. you central argument (better standardised markup) is close to my own heart. both Michael Downes and David Carlisle (key `They' people) have got proposals on the back-boiler which they should be encouraged (funded?) to refine. as the maintainer (I think, i am never sure) of the Elsevier preprint styles, I'll pledge my cooperation where possible. but i think you are whistling down the wind if you imagine the use of LaTeX will have a massive expansion due to standardisation. the powers of Bill Gates and XML are too strong, in my personal view.[1] Sebastian Rahtz Elsevier Science [1] ie, please dont shout at me. its a personal feeling. 1-Oct-1997 16:25:04-GMT,2910;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA07440 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 10:25:02 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA11657; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 18:03:42 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 206719 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 18:03:39 +0200 Received: from multivac (multivac.jb.man.ac.uk [130.88.24.128]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA11644 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 18:03:37 +0200 (MET DST) X-VMS-To: SMTP%"LATEX-L@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de" X-VMS-Cc: HELBIG Message-ID: <97100117023733@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 17:02:37 GMT Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Phillip Helbig Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L > One very useful feature for electronic journals would be the > possibility of putting a separate table of contents in each chapter > of the standard book or report style. Not sure I understand this one... > The chapters could then be used for separate articles in an issue. Sounds good in principle, but in practice the journal styles are so far removed from the standard LaTeX styles that it's more useful to think of them as independent entities, rather than as variants of standard LaTeX styles. However, article is probably closer than book to what is used in most journals. > The motivation for tables of contents is hyperlinks: A hyperlinked > table of contents makes an article more accessible when read > electronically. Seems to me that ONE table of contents per issue would be enough (with links to it from each article/chapter); why the need for a separate TOC in each chapter---or am I confused? > Would this be a reasonable request to make of the latex project? That's for them to say:| -- Phillip Helbig Email ... helbig@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories Tel. ..... +44 1477 571 321 (ext. 297) Jodrell Bank Fax ................. +44 1477 571 618 Macclesfield Telex ................. 36149 JODREL G UK-Cheshire SK11 9DL Web .... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pjh/ My opinions are not necessarily those of NRAL or the University of Manchester. 1-Oct-1997 16:43:36-GMT,1912;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA07990 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 10:43:33 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA12715; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 18:19:33 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 206731 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 18:19:31 +0200 Received: from ecu.econ.vu.nl (ecu.econ.vu.nl [130.37.52.3]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA12708 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 18:19:29 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by ecu.econ.vu.nl; Wed, 1 Oct 97 18:26:49 -0100 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 18:25:56 -6000 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Maarten Gelderman Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L SPQR: >hear, hear. natbib/custom-bib are awesome contributions to the LaTeX >world No harm intended, but could you elaborate on this muttering a little? Maarten ========================================================================== Maarten Gelderman email: mgelderman@econ.vu.nl Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam phone: +31 20 444 6073 De Boelelaan 1105 room 3a-36 fax +31 20 444 6005 NL-1081 HV AMSTERDAM The Netherlands 1-Oct-1997 16:52:23-GMT,2195;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA08318 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 10:52:20 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA13467; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 18:30:47 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 206751 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 18:30:44 +0200 Received: from ecu.econ.vu.nl (ecu.econ.vu.nl [130.37.52.3]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA13457 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 18:30:43 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by ecu.econ.vu.nl; Wed, 1 Oct 97 18:37:54 -0100 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 18:36:13 -6000 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Maarten Gelderman Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L >> SPQR: >> >hear, hear. natbib/custom-bib are awesome contributions to the LaTeX >> >world >> >> No harm intended, but could you elaborate on this muttering a little? > >Sebastian's view is pretty plain (and I share it). Patrick Daly does >a great service with his bibliography contributions. That's all. > >Robin I just got the opposite impression from SPQR's remark and was wondering what I was missing. A language problem I guess. Maarten ========================================================================== Maarten Gelderman email: mgelderman@econ.vu.nl Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam phone: +31 20 444 6073 De Boelelaan 1105 room 3a-36 fax +31 20 444 6005 NL-1081 HV AMSTERDAM The Netherlands 1-Oct-1997 16:53:16-GMT,1962;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA08343 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 10:53:12 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA13046; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 18:24:29 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 206737 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 18:24:27 +0200 Received: from heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk (exim@heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.32.11]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA13034 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 18:24:23 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dorceus.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.1.34] (rf) by heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.70 #3) id 0xGRa9-0001AB-00; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 17:25:01 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 17:25:00 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Robin Fairbairns Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 01 Oct 1997 18:25:56." > SPQR: > >hear, hear. natbib/custom-bib are awesome contributions to the LaTeX > >world > > No harm intended, but could you elaborate on this muttering a little? Sebastian's view is pretty plain (and I share it). Patrick Daly does a great service with his bibliography contributions. That's all. Robin 1-Oct-1997 17:25:34-GMT,8076;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA09323 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 11:25:32 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA14011; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 18:41:28 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 206756 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 18:41:23 +0200 Received: from multivac (multivac.jb.man.ac.uk [130.88.24.128]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA13996 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 18:41:20 +0200 (MET DST) X-VMS-To: SMTP%"LATEX-L@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de" X-VMS-Cc: HELBIG Message-ID: <97100117065677@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 17:06:56 GMT Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Phillip Helbig Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L > I strongly support the concept of extended standard markup, > particularly for front matter. long overdue. I hope that there is no one who doesn't support this. > i have said it ad nauseam, and i say it again; i work for the worlds > largest STM publisher, and i can assure you that *here* > > - the great majority of MSS are not in LaTeX At least in astronomy, and probably in many fields of physics as well, most manuscripts are written in LaTeX. Most scientific writing (meaning writing by scientists here) is for journals, not books. And most journals accept/encourage LaTeX (though often 2.09 and NOT 2e). As far as recycling goes, things such as theses, annual reports, popular articles etc are also written, usually in LaTeX, and thus compatibility between journal macros and up-to-date LaTeX is essential. > - LaTeX is not used internally for CRC except in special circumstances I'm mainly concerned with making the authors' lives easier---what the publisher does with the manuscript is not my concern here. > though that should not discourage you. in addition, i don't know of any > publishing house which, if pressed, would not claim that SGML was > their long-term data storage format, not LaTeX Again, the long-term data storage format of most AUTHORS is LaTeX. > hear, hear. natbib/custom-bib are awesome contributions to the LaTeX > world Amen. > > On a related topic, although most journals and publishers don't simply > > `print the PostScript file' but rather produce camera-ready copy, > we cannot be unusual in having a very high emphasis these days on > getting an electronic form of the article, in a portable form, ie > SGML. dont talk to me about latex2html.... what gets printed is a side > issue, sometimes Print is becoming less important, but I (and many others; witness the massive protest on the part of the astronomical community about a year ago, which led to Astronomy and Astrophysics abandoning their half-baked electronic publication scheme) strongly feel that as long as paper journals exist, electronic versions should be essentially identical. In some cases extra information which is available only electronically is justified, but essentially one wants (today) an electronic version of a paper as opposed to a paper version of an electronic document. What the relation of electronic publishing, as opposed to electronic preparation of paper documents, to this is---that's a different (though related) issue. > some of you concerns should be taken up with the *editor*, not the > *publisher*. Right---bad choice of terms. > i think you are promoting (rightly) use of email as the > *only* submission medium, for fast and efficient turnaround, and thats > before it gets to the publisher (depending on the journal). A separate issue really, but I'm happy to promote it. There really should be no need for submitting stuff on diskette. > how many PostSCript files from random authors have you processed? > clearly your success rate is considerably higher than mine! As a matter of fact, my last problems in this area were yesterday. However, the solution is more pressure on the authors, not a return to the stone age. With the electronic preprint servers, for example, the standard procedure is now to submit a TeX file and PostScript files to be included (which has now been standardised pretty much) and if it is not possible to create proper output, the submission is rejected. This is even done automatically, as far as I know; surely something similar could be used to force authors to submit only standard-conforming stuff. There ARE standards and they should be strictly adhered to. > *please* dont suggest PostScript. its inventors, Adobe, have invested > their authority and considerable research into the next generation > language, PDF, who advantages so much outweigh the problems (in our > world) that it seems (to me) madness not to espouse it. especially > since we have a TeX that writes PDF directly. I'm thinking more of PostScript files of plots and things written by FORTRAN programmes:) Maybe for entire documents PDF is the way to go. However, first things first and PLEASE let's have LaTeX2e before PDF! > you central argument (better > standardised markup) is close to my own heart. both Michael Downes and > David Carlisle (key `They' people) have got proposals on the back-boiler > which they should be encouraged (funded?) to refine. The purpose of this action is to build up some enthusiasm for widespread support. Pressure the journals into hiring these guys as consultants!!! > as the maintainer > (I think, i am never sure) of the Elsevier preprint styles, I'll > pledge my cooperation where possible. Happy to hear it! > but i think you are whistling down the wind if you imagine the use of > LaTeX will have a massive expansion due to standardisation. the powers > of Bill Gates and XML are too strong, in my personal view.[1] > [1] ie, please dont shout at me. its a personal feeling. Certainly no reason to shout at you; perhaps to join you in crying. I don't hope for a massive LaTeX expansion due to standardisation (though both expansion and standardisation would be nice), but it would be nice to solve the problems I mentioned for those already using it, and at least not scare away potential traditional users, like physics students. As far as Bill Gates goes, I'm completely microsoft (and intel) free. I'm even completely unix-free, doing EVERYTHING on VMS (never worse and often better than my unix counterparts)---Fortran and other languages, LaTeX, www browser, www server, usenet news, email,...not to mention a nice operating system:) People talk and talk about how sad it is that microsoft is dominating the market, in my view the domination itself is not bad but rather domination by inferior products and (perhaps) unfair competition. However, there is a simple solution: buy yourself another platform and let everyone know how much better off you are. Too often such things become self-fulfilling prophecies, with people migrating just because everyone else is, or everyone else might, even though they themselves have no reason to do so. -- Phillip Helbig Email ... helbig@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories Tel. ..... +44 1477 571 321 (ext. 297) Jodrell Bank Fax ................. +44 1477 571 618 Macclesfield Telex ................. 36149 JODREL G UK-Cheshire SK11 9DL Web .... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pjh/ My opinions are not necessarily those of NRAL or the University of Manchester. 2-Oct-1997 7:46:05-GMT,5971;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA28964 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 01:46:04 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA06733; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 09:20:31 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 207131 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 09:20:23 +0200 Received: from fw.gwdg.de (fw-nf0.gwdg.de [134.76.98.6]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA06717 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 09:20:13 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dnet.gwdg.de (actually gwdgi.gwdg.de) by fw.gwdg.de with SMTP (PP); Thu, 2 Oct 1997 09:19:30 +0200 Message-ID: <199710020720.JAA06717@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 09:20:25 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: "LINPWD::DALY" Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L I am very much in favour of standardizing the LaTeX support for journals, having supplied two such macro packages, one as an add-on to improve an existing (2.09) mess that calls itself the official macro package for the major journal in my field, and the other for which I was commissioned to produce the official package. Of course the latter was much more enjoyable because I had a free hand. The problem of non-standardization is enormous, but more the fault of the article.sty/cls that did not provide enough models for the necessary input commands. Perhaps one should take AMS-LaTeX as a model since the AMS has always been a keen supporter TeX/LaTeX and can be considered to have sufficient practical experience with author-supplied copy in LaTeX(2e). > > Fortunately, this problem can ALREADY be solved by the use of Patrick > > Daly's natbib.sty and custom-bib package. Since this is IDEALLY suited > > to the problem of variation in citations and references, it should > > actually be REQUIRED by all journals and publishers who use LaTeX at > > all. > hear, hear. natbib/custom-bib are awesome contributions to the LaTeX > world These are beautiful words to hear! They make the whole gigantic effort, especially for custom-bib, well worthwhile. (I am a native English speaker, so I have no problems with "awesome"; it is not the same as "awful" at all!) The journal packages that I supply contain natbib coding (rather a subset of it) included in the .cls files themselves. This may sound perverse, but as the author of natbib, I can take this liberty. It meant that I did not have to distribute natbib explicitly with the journal packages, and it also meant that much of the extra, unneeded features (the dancing girls) could be left out. I originally wrote natbib to be used as a module that could be included (via docstrip) in other packages; the module later evolved into an independent package. To generalize this so that other programmers can do the same would likely require some minor reworking of the code. One point of non-standard interfacing that all journal packages must solve somehow is the entry of the authors' names and affiliation. The standard LaTeX syntax \author{First Author\\Affiliation One \and Second Author and Third Author\\Affiliation Two} is inadequate for long author lists where the authors are not ordered by affiliation. In this case, footnotes are usually used to associate author and affiliation, with repeating footnote markers. There is no way to provide this in standard LaTeX, so most journals must reinvent some syntax independently. I myself have a package (not make public) that also can be used as a module, that allows both the above syntax as well as \author{First Author} \affil{Affiliation One} \author{Second Author} \author{Third Author} \affil{Affiliation Two} Depending on the number of affiliations, you either get the standard block-type author-affil listing, or the footnote style. By adding optional markers, you force the footnote method, as \author[1]{First Author} \author[2]{Second Author} \author[1,*]{Third Author} \affil[1]{Affiliation One} \affil[2]{Affiliation Two} \affil[*]{On leave from Affiliation Two} I think this is a flexible input syntax. What is really printed depends on the programmer, of course. I agree with Sebastian that PostScript is an interim solution. I have not yet worked with PDF but from what I hear of it, it is the better way of the future. I am currently working as production editor on an 18 chapter book, of 500 pages, with dozens of PostScript figures. I assure you, the printing of these figures, sent to me by various contributers from multitudes of software, are often a real headache. As PostScript figures are used more and more, it is becoming clear how much trouble they can cause. Usually because the generating application abuses PostScript terribly. Summing up, I am willing to participate in this standardization project. Patrick ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Patrick W. Daly Tel. [+49] 5556-979-279 Max-Planck-Institut fuer Aeronomie Fax. [+49] 5556-979-240 Max-Planck-Str. 2 D-37191 Katlenburg-Lindau Internet: daly@linmpi.mpg.de Germany ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-Oct-1997 9:10:46-GMT,10298;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA00605 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 03:10:38 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA11948; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 10:28:51 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 207201 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 10:28:47 +0200 Received: from multivac (multivac.jb.man.ac.uk [130.88.24.128]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA11915 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 10:28:26 +0200 (MET DST) X-VMS-To: SMTP%"LATEX-L@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de" X-VMS-Cc: HELBIG Message-ID: <97100208475917@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 08:47:59 GMT Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Phillip Helbig Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L To start off, something completely different. Old FORTRAN programmers probably do it anyway, but everyone here should limit their lines to 72 characters, which allow them to be quoted with `> ' up to four times (more should never be necessary) without violating the God-given 80 character width limit. Patrick Daly wrote: > I am very much in favour of standardizing the LaTeX support for > journals, having supplied two such macro packages, one as an add-on to > improve an existing (2.09) mess that calls itself the official macro > package for the major journal in my field, and the other for which I was > commissioned to produce the official package. Of course the latter was > much more enjoyable because I had a free hand. I was familiar with the books by Kopka in German, and when I started working in Britain and used the change as an opportunity to upgrade from LaTeX2.09 to LaTeX2e (simulataneous with a VAX-->ALPHA and VMS 5.5-->7.1 upgrade, FORTRAN77-->Fortran95 and so on) I went out and bought the Kopka and Daly book (as well as the Companion and Graphics Companion and the 2e version of Lamport) and was delighted with the new features at my fingertips. Anticipating the possibility of writing for more than one journal in the future, I was keen on being able to write exactly the same LaTeX text regardless of destination. Then I noticed how many macro packages are still at 2.09, which is bad enough in itself but if one wants to solve the problem of incompatibility by the use of meta-macros or whatever, it is even worse since such things work much better in LaTeX2e. Thus my anger which started this discussion. Especially in a time when several journals are talking about electronic publishing, I notice a very large need to put first things first. > The problem of non-standardization is enormous, but more the fault of > the article.sty/cls that did not provide enough models for the necessary > input commands. Right, some extension is necessary, which is possible as everyone who has ever customised a sty/cls knows; it would just be nice if everyone did it in the same way. > Perhaps one should take AMS-LaTeX as a model since the AMS has always > been a keen supporter TeX/LaTeX and can be considered to have sufficient > practical experience with author-supplied copy in LaTeX(2e). I'm not familiar with AMS-LaTeX; if it's good why not, but one should be careful not to exclude any needed features just because they are currently not part of AMS-LaTeX. > > > Fortunately, this problem can ALREADY be solved by the use of Patrick > > > Daly's natbib.sty and custom-bib package. Since this is IDEALLY suited > > > to the problem of variation in citations and references, it should > > > actually be REQUIRED by all journals and publishers who use LaTeX at > > > all. > > hear, hear. natbib/custom-bib are awesome contributions to the LaTeX > > world > > These are beautiful words to hear! They make the whole gigantic effort, > especially for custom-bib, well worthwhile. (I am a native English > speaker, so I have no problems with "awesome"; it is not the same as > "awful" at all!) > > The journal packages that I supply contain natbib coding (rather a > subset of it) included in the .cls files themselves. This may sound > perverse, but as the author of natbib, I can take this liberty. Nice to have a big cheese join into the discussion! > One point of non-standard interfacing that all journal packages must > solve somehow is the entry of the authors' names and affiliation. The > standard LaTeX syntax > [...] > I myself have a package (not make public) that also can be used as a > module, that allows both the above syntax as well as > \author{First Author} > \affil{Affiliation One} > \author{Second Author} > \author{Third Author} > \affil{Affiliation Two} > Depending on the number of affiliations, you either get the standard > block-type author-affil listing, or the footnote style. By adding > optional markers, you force the footnote method, as > \author[1]{First Author} > \author[2]{Second Author} > \author[1,*]{Third Author} > \affil[1]{Affiliation One} > \affil[2]{Affiliation Two} > \affil[*]{On leave from Affiliation Two} > > I think this is a flexible input syntax. What is really printed depends > on the programmer, of course. Most journals implement this in some fashion. Ideally, one would have (as in all other cases) the same input text and the way it looks would be determined by the cls one uses. > I agree with Sebastian that PostScript is an interim solution. I have > not yet worked with PDF but from what I hear of it, it is the better way > of the future. I am currently working as production editor on an 18 > chapter book, of 500 pages, with dozens of PostScript figures. I assure > you, the printing of these figures, sent to me by various contributers > from multitudes of software, are often a real headache. As PostScript > figures are used more and more, it is becoming clear how much trouble > they can cause. Usually because the generating application abuses > PostScript terribly. Sounds to me like things would be much better if applications stuck to standard PostScript. Is that too much to ask? What's to stop applications from abusing the PDF format? > Summing up, I am willing to participate in this standardization project. Very nice to hear. Many of the movers and shakers in the LaTeX world are on this list, so it seems the logical place to concentrate effort, at least initially. The question is, where do we go from here? After preaching to the choir, we must first get everyone to agree to abide by a future standard, and then implement that standard, both as quickly as possible. If some sort of web site is necessary for this (and let's face it, like it or not a web site is almost essential these days) I would be willing to host it on my web server (http://multivac.jb.man.ac.uk:8000/), expanding the stuff in http://multivac.jb.man.ac.uk:8000/latex-campaign/. I would suggest that as many people as possible read the manifesto http://multivac.jb.man.ac.uk:8000/latex-campaign/manifesto.txt and send suggestions for improvement to latex-manifesto@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk which I will incorporate into the constantly-updated manifesto. After some version is agreed upon, some suitable representative, for example Patrick Daly, should approach simultaneously all the journals, publishers etc with the manifesto and a list of those supporting it, complete with scientific affiliation and, for some of us, degree of LaTeX expertise (for example, authors of books, those that work professionally with LaTeX other than as an author, etc). It would at least look nice if Lamport would lend his name to the project, at least as a moral supporter and signer of the manifesto. Of course, if anyone has any suggestions to improve this plan of attack, they are more than welcome. I myself have done a bit of LaTeX programming, or hacking as it was better called with 2.09, primarily to customise the book.sty for my master's thesis http://multivac.jb.man.ac.uk:8000/helbig/Research/Publications/ Info/diplomarbeit.html but of course there are many others who have much more expertise, especially with the internals of LaTeX2e. In other words, I would be happy to contribute as a programmer, but fear that there are others who can do the job better, and I keep hearing rumours about similar projects on various backburners, so perhaps much of the work has already been done. As initiator of this discussion and the preliminary web pages, I would be happy to continue to be involved in some sense, perhaps as liaison to publishers in Britain (as opposed to Germany, where many of the gurus are). (On the other hand, I'm actually from Germany and have only been working in Britain since the beginning of the year, so that there might be better people for this function in Britain who are more familiar with the scene.) If this `standardised journal macros' project needs its own mailing list, again I would be happy to set this up, unless someone else can do it much more easily (a mailing list isn't that much effort, though). First there needs to be perhaps a bit more discussion as to what is actually needed and then some about the plan of attack. Cheers, Phillip -- Phillip Helbig Email ... helbig@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories Tel. ..... +44 1477 571 321 (ext. 297) Jodrell Bank Fax ................. +44 1477 571 618 Macclesfield Telex ................. 36149 JODREL G UK-Cheshire SK11 9DL Web .... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pjh/ My opinions are not necessarily those of NRAL or the University of Manchester. 2-Oct-1997 11:22:59-GMT,2461;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA02826 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 05:22:57 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA19239; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 12:48:45 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 207276 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 12:48:44 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA19231 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 12:48:42 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.49] (sl125.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.151]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.4) with SMTP id MAA11055 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 12:48:37 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 12:49:43 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: God given limit (Was: LaTeX journal and publisher macros) To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L At 10:47 97/10/02, Phillip Helbig wrote: >To start off, something completely different. Old FORTRAN programmers >probably do it anyway, but everyone here should limit their lines to 72 >characters, which allow them to be quoted with `> ' up to four times >(more should never be necessary) without violating the God-given 80 >character width limit. One way to get around this is to switch to an emailer that can handle MIME; it will break lines longer than 76 characters, and pick them together again, transparently to the user. And old FORTRAN programmers could switch to something more modern... :-) Hans Aberg * AMS member: Listing * Email: Hans Aberg 2-Oct-1997 13:45:17-GMT,2628;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA05398 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 07:45:09 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA01396; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 14:59:02 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 207324 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 14:58:59 +0200 Received: from pillar.elsevier.co.uk (root@pillar.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.222.35]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA01365 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 14:58:52 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from snowdon.elsevier.co.uk (snowdon.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.197.164]) by pillar.elsevier.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA15217 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 13:57:26 +0100 (BST) Received: from SRAHTZ (actually host srahtz.elsevier.co.uk) by snowdon.elsevier.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Thu, 2 Oct 1997 13:57:29 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: X-Mailer: VM 6.33 under Emacs 19.34.6 Message-ID: <1300-Thu02Oct1997133916+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 13:39:16 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Sebastian Rahtz Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: Robin Fairbairns writes: > > SPQR: > > >hear, hear. natbib/custom-bib are awesome contributions to the LaTeX > > >world > > > > No harm intended, but could you elaborate on this muttering a little? > > Sebastian's view is pretty plain (and I share it). Patrick Daly does > a great service with his bibliography contributions. That's all. > i think what i mean is that Patrick seems to have addressed the question of a sufficiently flexible syntax for extended \cite commands. it would be nice if other packages followed his lead in the markup. Sebastian 2-Oct-1997 14:19:02-GMT,3590;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA06116 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 08:18:59 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA04967; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 15:48:53 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 207359 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 15:48:48 +0200 Received: from pillar.elsevier.co.uk (root@pillar.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.222.35]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA04949 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 15:48:42 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from snowdon.elsevier.co.uk (snowdon.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.197.164]) by pillar.elsevier.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA17388 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 14:47:51 +0100 (BST) Received: from SRAHTZ (actually host srahtz.elsevier.co.uk) by snowdon.elsevier.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Thu, 2 Oct 1997 14:47:59 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <97100208475917@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> X-Mailer: VM 6.33 under Emacs 19.34.6 Message-ID: <6960-Thu02Oct1997142210+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 14:22:10 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Sebastian Rahtz Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <97100208475917@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> > Sounds to me like things would be much better if applications stuck to > standard PostScript. Is that too much to ask? What's to stop > applications from abusing the PDF format? PS is a programming language, PDF isnt. hence the difference in the meaning of `standard'. *I* don't know how to abuse PDF, but I certainly know how to write bad PS... > at least initially. The question is, where do we go from here? After > preaching to the choir, we must first get everyone to agree to abide by > a future standard, and then implement that standard, both as quickly as > possible. talk to Michael Downes, David Carlisle, Taco Hoekwater, me, and Patrick, and get copies of their extended markup specification for, eg, frontmatter and citation. then do an analysis and suggest a superset. merge in the markup of all other journal styles you can locate. the best way to achieve change is to make a concrete suggestion of what you want done. just saying `lets talk' gets nowhere. Frank and his gang at 2e need *concrete* specifications, not just a manifesto. > especially with the internals of LaTeX2e. In other words, I would be > happy to contribute as a programmer, but fear that there are others who programming is the least of it. draft a document outlining proposed changes and additions to the standard `article' markup, and discuss the applicaability of that. only when the markup is agreed does anyone need to try and implement it. hacking something, or worrying whether something is technically possible, is entirely the wrong way to start... Sebastian 2-Oct-1997 14:19:50-GMT,3689;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA06147 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 08:19:49 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA04976; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 15:48:57 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 207362 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 15:48:56 +0200 Received: from pillar.elsevier.co.uk (root@pillar.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.222.35]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA04948 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 15:48:38 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from snowdon.elsevier.co.uk (snowdon.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.197.164]) by pillar.elsevier.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA17384 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 14:47:50 +0100 (BST) Received: from SRAHTZ (actually host srahtz.elsevier.co.uk) by snowdon.elsevier.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Thu, 2 Oct 1997 14:47:55 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <97100117065677@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> X-Mailer: VM 6.33 under Emacs 19.34.6 Message-ID: <6346-Thu02Oct1997141134+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 14:11:34 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Sebastian Rahtz Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <97100117065677@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Phillip Helbig writes: > At least in astronomy, and probably in many fields of physics as well, > most manuscripts are written in LaTeX. Most scientific writing incredible as it may seem, astronomy and physics do not form anywhere near a majority of science..... > writing by scientists here) is for journals, not books. And most > journals accept/encourage LaTeX (though often 2.09 and NOT 2e). As far in your fields, yes. > > publishing house which, if pressed, would not claim that SGML was > > their long-term data storage format, not LaTeX > > Again, the long-term data storage format of most AUTHORS is LaTeX. in your fields... > I'm thinking more of PostScript files of plots and things written by > FORTRAN programmes:) Maybe for entire documents PDF is the way to go. ah those. the non-conforming `EPS' files written by Dr A FORTRAN Programmer which cause people like me so much grief.... > As far as Bill Gates goes, I'm completely microsoft (and intel) free. > I'm even completely unix-free, doing EVERYTHING on VMS (never worse and and you talk about the stone age! > competition. However, there is a simple solution: buy yourself another > platform and let everyone know how much better off you are. Too often > such things become self-fulfilling prophecies, with people migrating > just because everyone else is, or everyone else might, even though they > themselves have no reason to do so. i don't _think_ the *vast* majority of people a) have much choice in what they use in the way of OS or hardware. b) have any conception of how to migrate to another system on their own. i may be wrong, tho. but getting off topic sebastian 2-Oct-1997 15:34:06-GMT,2410;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA08522 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 09:34:01 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA10672; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 17:07:09 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 207421 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 17:07:04 +0200 Received: from MZDMZA.ZDV.UNI-MAINZ.DE (dzdmzb.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.8.33]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA10656 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 17:06:58 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from MZDMZA.ZDV.UNI-MAINZ.DE by MZDMZA.ZDV.UNI-MAINZ.DE (PMDF V5.0-4 #22141) id <01IOC7963FK0AR2GIE@MZDMZA.ZDV.UNI-MAINZ.DE> for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 02 Oct 1997 17:08:33 +0100 X-VMS-To: IN%"LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE" MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Message-ID: <01IOC7963K9EAR2GIE@MZDMZA.ZDV.UNI-MAINZ.DE> Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 17:08:33 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: "J%org Knappen, Mainz" Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Sebastian Rahtz wrote: > > I'm even completely unix-free, doing EVERYTHING on VMS (never worse and > and you talk about the stone age! Maybe your mental image of VMS is still a 2 meter high rack with one MicroVAX and its huge and heavy disks, capable of less than a modern PC? VMS on a multiprocessor DEC Alpha machine is not stone age in any respect. Coming back to the topic of this list: I often meet people which have a similar mental image of TeX and LaTeX. They are surprised: What, LaTeX can do colour? What, embedding eps figures runs without pain? because their mental image conserves a state of LaTeX half a decade ago. --J"org Knappen 2-Oct-1997 16:04:09-GMT,2785;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA09321 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 10:02:52 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA11824; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 17:27:27 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 207436 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 17:27:22 +0200 Received: from pillar.elsevier.co.uk (root@pillar.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.222.35]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA11807 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 17:27:16 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from snowdon.elsevier.co.uk (snowdon.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.197.164]) by pillar.elsevier.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA22152 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 16:26:29 +0100 (BST) Received: from SRAHTZ (actually host srahtz.elsevier.co.uk) by snowdon.elsevier.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Thu, 2 Oct 1997 16:26:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <01IOC7963K9EAR2GIE@MZDMZA.ZDV.UNI-MAINZ.DE> X-Mailer: VM 6.33 under Emacs 19.34.6 Message-ID: <1535-Thu02Oct1997162556+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 16:25:56 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Sebastian Rahtz Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <01IOC7963K9EAR2GIE@MZDMZA.ZDV.UNI-MAINZ.DE> > > Maybe your mental image of VMS is still a 2 meter high rack with one > MicroVAX and its huge and heavy disks, capable of less than a modern PC? Microvax? no, before that... > I often meet people which have a similar mental image of TeX and > LaTeX. They are surprised: What, LaTeX can do colour? What, embedding > eps figures runs without pain? because their mental image conserves > a state of LaTeX half a decade ago. and that relates to this topic: people look at Lamport's book and say `but that doesn't do anything like my complex journal style'. when they look further, they are confronted with 1Gb of rubbish on CTAN, some of which conceals what they really want - maybe. i think we'd all benefit from a new articleplusplus.cls sebastian 3-Oct-1997 12:22:52-GMT,4437;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA07333 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 06:22:50 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA27994; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 13:53:14 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 207738 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 13:53:12 +0200 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1b.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.135]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA27981 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 13:53:09 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dcarlisle.demon.co.uk ([194.222.187.145]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa0920093; 3 Oct 97 12:30 BST Received: by dcarlisle.demon.co.uk id m0xH61Q-000OWFC (Debian Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #2); Fri, 3 Oct 1997 12:35:52 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 12:35:52 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: David Carlisle Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <97100208475917@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> (message from Phillip Helbig on Thu, 2 Oct 1997 08:47:59 GMT) > First there needs to be perhaps a bit more discussion as to what is > actually needed and then some about the plan of attack. It is good to see latex-l coming alive again:-) Basically I think you will find that everyone agrees that a standardised set of markup for journal articles would be a good thing and that the `standard' article class hinders rather than helps by having a non existent set of commands for frontmatter markup. As explained in the last ltnews, it does not really make sense to try to extend those classes now as that just creates more problems than it solves. One possible approach would be: a) a package was developed implementing a frontmatter markup rich enough for multi-author journal submissions, together with hooks to allow journal class files to typeset the frontmatter in different ways from the same initial markup. b) Journal `production' class files accepted this `standardised' markup, either by using the above package, or at least implementing a consistent (for the author) set of commands. (I notice that Patrick commented earlier in this thread that sometimes it is better to embed a `mini-natbib' directly into a class file rather than \RequirePackage{natbib}.) As Sebastian mentioned, I have a trial implementation of such a frontmatter package athough I have been resisting making it public in its present form as I am not happy with the author-syntax that it currently implements, and the implementation itself will probably have to change completely. (It is an entertaining exercise to come up with an implementation that will allow the same author markup to be typeset in the house styles of AMS, Kluwer and Elsevier (one could add more, but those three are already quite a problem:-) Ideally one would like the author only to have to change \documentclass{journal-one} to \documentclass{journal-two} if journal-one has the bad taste to reject his article, but house styles vary considerably (eg authors grouped by affiliation or not) which means that the `natural' author markup for one journal might not look so natural when applied to another. (My current implementation is essentially no good at all for the Kluwer styles, which is one reason I am not keen on letting it out.) I may add some comments describing the current very experimental status of the package and then make it available to people on this list if there is interest in this. Phillip, I see I sent you a copy of that in the summer, does it seem to go in the right direction? David PS If you give me a guided tour of Jodrell Bank (which is only a few minutes down the road from Hazel Grove) we could discuss this over coffee:-) 3-Oct-1997 14:20:59-GMT,4704;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA09796 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 08:20:57 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA03413; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 15:55:27 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 207783 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 15:55:23 +0200 Received: from kralle.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (kralle.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.8.158]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA03402 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 15:55:19 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from Ufrank@localhost) by kralle.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA06999 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 15:55:19 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kralle.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE: Ufrank set sender to latex3 using -f Received: (from latex3@localhost) by frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de (8.6.9/8.6.9) id OAA00927; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 14:39:59 +0100 References: <97100208475917@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> <6960-Thu02Oct1997142210+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> Message-ID: <199710031339.OAA00927@frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de> Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 14:39:59 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Frank Mittelbach Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <6960-Thu02Oct1997142210+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> Sebastian Rahtz writes: > > at least initially. The question is, where do we go from here? After > > preaching to the choir, we must first get everyone to agree to abide by > > a future standard, and then implement that standard, both as quickly as > > possible. > talk to Michael Downes, David Carlisle, Taco Hoekwater, me, and Patrick, > and get copies of their extended markup specification for, eg, > frontmatter and citation. then do an analysis and suggest a superset. > merge in the markup of all other journal styles you can locate. > > the best way to achieve change is to make a concrete suggestion of > what you want done. just saying `lets talk' gets nowhere. Frank and > his gang at 2e need *concrete* specifications, not just a manifesto. I wholeheartedly agree. what we need are explicit specifications of what the interface need to support and how it should look like (there first part is even more important) As David is in fact working on this right now i'm sure he will have something to say about possible approaches and the current specs once he is back and reading this thread. (perhaps he even has replied by now which is difficult to see off-line) > > especially with the internals of LaTeX2e. In other words, I would be > > happy to contribute as a programmer, but fear that there are others who > > programming is the least of it. draft a document outlining proposed > changes and additions to the standard `article' markup, and discuss > the applicaability of that. only when the markup is agreed does anyone > need to try and implement it. hacking something, or worrying whether > something is technically possible, is entirely the wrong way to start... again, yes. not programming is required at this stage. instead people willing to contribute should take a look at the current specs and compare their power with the requirement of any journal they can get hold off, as well as the specs used by journals cls or 209 style files. >From that detailed proposals for extensions/changes for a standarized specification should be made. this would bring us a long way along to some: > i think we'd all benefit from a new articleplusplus.cls once we do have those new specs for various parts of what the cls files have to deal with, we can and will extend the LaTeX distribution with *additional* new standard cls files that use these interfaces. Then (or a bit before) it is time to also work on implementing journal .cls files for different journals --- in my estimate this will be (early) next year now in case you intend to ask where are the specs for frontmatter? --- don't ask me ;-) i'm sure that David will say something about that frank 3-Oct-1997 18:45:22-GMT,2319;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA17175 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 12:45:20 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA15759; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 20:18:24 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 207855 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 20:18:21 +0200 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1b.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.135]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA15749 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 20:18:19 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dcarlisle.demon.co.uk ([194.222.187.145]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1125180; 3 Oct 97 19:16 BST Received: by dcarlisle.demon.co.uk id m0xHBt4-000OWBC (Debian Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #2); Fri, 3 Oct 1997 18:51:38 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 18:51:38 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: David Carlisle Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <97100208475917@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> (message from Phillip Helbig on Thu, 2 Oct 1997 08:47:59 GMT) > To start off, something completely different. Old FORTRAN programmers All the files in the latex distribution are checked for the 72 character limit as part of the Makefile that makes up the distribution. (A few files have longer lines for one reason or another.) This was more important when unencoded mail was a major distribution method. These days ftp/http, cdrom or just better mail gateways mean that it is probably not so important, although we do still check the files. Apart from distribution problems, long lines of code are harder to read. David 3-Oct-1997 19:07:14-GMT,2469;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA17749 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 13:07:13 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA17128; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 20:49:55 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 207875 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 20:49:54 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA17121 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 20:49:52 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.27] (sl31.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.51]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id UAA00571 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 20:49:51 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se References: <97100208475917@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> (message from Phillip Helbig on Thu, 2 Oct 1997 08:47:59 GMT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 20:49:40 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: David Carlisle wrote: >> To start off, something completely different. Old FORTRAN programmers >All the files in the latex distribution are checked for the 72 >character limit ... These days ... better mail gateways mean that it is >>probably not so important... I think MIME was superseeded by an attempt to make all mail gateways 8-bit, but it failed, because there might be some gateway somewhere along the path corrupting the mail, and it was too difficult replacing those. So do not rely on better mail gates, but use MIME instead. (Email attachments should get through uncorrupted.) 3-Oct-1997 19:09:05-GMT,2098;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA17783 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 13:09:04 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA17356; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 20:53:47 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 207884 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 20:53:45 +0200 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1b.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.135]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA17334 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 20:53:43 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dcarlisle.demon.co.uk ([194.222.187.145]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa0925024; 3 Oct 97 19:36 BST Received: by dcarlisle.demon.co.uk id m0xHCZJ-000OWBC (Debian Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #2); Fri, 3 Oct 1997 19:35:17 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 19:35:17 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: David Carlisle Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <199710011511.LAA15137@fenris.math.albany.edu> (message from Mark Steinberger on Wed, 1 Oct 1997 11:11:31 -0400) > One very useful feature for electronic journals would be the > possibility of putting a separate table of contents in each chapter > of the standard book or report style. ... > Would this be a reasonable request to make of the latex project? Do you mean something different from the (contributed) \usepackage{minitoc} David 3-Oct-1997 19:09:17-GMT,5159;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA17787 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 13:09:16 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA17389; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 20:54:27 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 207889 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 20:54:26 +0200 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1b.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.135]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA17382 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 20:54:24 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dcarlisle.demon.co.uk ([194.222.187.145]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1125197; 3 Oct 97 19:16 BST Received: by dcarlisle.demon.co.uk id m0xHCO3-000OWCC (Debian Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #2); Fri, 3 Oct 1997 19:23:39 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 19:23:39 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: David Carlisle Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <97100208475917@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> (message from Phillip Helbig on Thu, 2 Oct 1997 08:47:59 GMT) What is the main purpose of a standard markup convention for journal articles? * To allow a single generic `preprint class' to be used for authors for multiple journals, with the `production class' for a particular journal being used just in the final stages, perhaps in house after the author submission? * To allow transfer of articles from one journal class to another? * To give a more or less loose set of conventions so that authors are not `surprised' by the submission requirements of any particular journal, even if certain differences in markup are required for each journal? I'll give a couple off examples of the kind of issue that I have in mind when asking the above questions. Some journals give full postal addresses for each author. Some just give an `affiliation' for each author and highlight one `corresponding author' for whom full address is given. For the first type of Journal one might expect some kind of syntax like \author{...} \address{...} \author{...} \address{...} \author{...} \address{...} (with suitable shortcuts to allow shared addresses to be only specified once, and optional arguments of various sorts) For the second type one might expect \author{...} \author{...} \affiliation{...} \affiliation{...} \author{...} or perhaps \correspondingauthor{...} \affiliation{...} \affiliation{...} \correspondingaddress{...} \address{...} \author{...} \author{...} \affiliation{...} \affiliation{...} or some other markup scheme. The question is, does it make sense to try to have one preprint class that covers both schemes. If such a class is to guarantee that documents can be run without error on either production class, then it seems that authors will be asked to provide lots of `redundant' information such as full address and affiliation for each author, even though a typical class will only use one or the other. This may seem like a rather trivial distinction, but several such small differences soon combine to mean that either your `generic front matter code' becomes quite complicated, or you end up with several class files which are similar in construction but strictly incompatible. For production use it is essential that any preprint style that authors used is more or less guaranteed to produce manuscripts that run with the production class (that may use commercial fonts or differ in other ways from a public author submission class, but should take as far as possible exactly the same manuscript markup). Another problem is author order. Some Journals (see for example the Kluwer class files) order all authors from the same institution together. Perhaps more common is a single list of authors with somekind of footnote marker system to identify the affiliation of each author. The AMS have a kind of hybrid system where the frontmatter author list is a single list, but at the end a list of full address is cross referenced back to the authors. Does it make sense to try to capture all these systems with a standard markup scheme. Especially as author order in some disciplines involves political implications of `seniority' (In others, authors are always listed alphabetically irrespective of seniority). Just questions this message, no answers. David 4-Oct-1997 16:51:19-GMT,2844;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA11674 for ; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 10:51:18 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA11891; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 18:29:25 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 208135 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 18:29:23 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA11883 for ; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 18:29:21 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.66] (sl125.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.151]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id SAA15238 for ; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 18:29:20 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 18:30:13 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: LaTeX & email To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L At 10:47 97/10/02, Phillip Helbig wrote: >To start off, something completely different. Old FORTRAN programmers >probably do it anyway, but everyone here should limit their lines to 72 >characters, which allow them to be quoted with `> ' up to four times >(more should never be necessary) without violating the God-given 80 >character width limit. While we are at it, email systems start to be able to handle styled text. One can even
Timesdisplay
text. For users of Mac's and PC's there is even a for free program Eudora Light 3 <, which can read such new features. This ought to make readers of this mailing list happy, because surely the things developed here will become the standards of tomorrow, in one form or another. So, hurry up, making sure your email software is up to date (that is, if this letter looks like foo bar to you). Hans Aberg * AMS member: Listing < * Email: Hans Aberg < 5-Oct-1997 14:20:58-GMT,4866;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA02565 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 08:20:56 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA08536; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 15:58:04 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 208285 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 15:58:01 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA08521 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 15:57:59 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.82] (sl118.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.144]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id PAA24857 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 15:57:56 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 15:57:44 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <97100115382274@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Here is a futuristic scenario: Think of a version HyTeX of TeX (as the name HyperTeX is already occupied) with the capacity of \input-ing URL's; then the ideal electronic journal only needs to contain information about journal style, and which articles to \input, the latter which of course already are posted in an official e-print archive. The distribution of each journal issue can thus become very compact. :-) Now, this idea is somewhat extreme (to us, today), but it gives an idea of how information needs to be split up between the journal style and the article style: The author needs to be able to write the article as usual, being able to generate a printout with its style elements; the journal style needs to being able to intercept and alter the style elements of its choice from the article style. If TeX was object oriented, then the various style elements would be elements of an abstract classes, first derived by the "article" class, and then derived by the "foo-journal" class (opposite of the typesetting order, with the journal class coming before the article class). The question is how to simulate this in TeX: In the typesetting, the journal class will be read before the article class, so if the journal defines a style element which it does not allow the article class to change, it must somehow communicate that to the article class. Now, exactly which style elements this concerns will vary with the journal, so the suggested scheme must be fairly general. So it appears that what is needed is a document hierarchy: \documentclass{journal} % Start of journal class \begin{document} \documentclass{article} % Start of article 1 class \begin{document} %% Article 1 stuff \end{document} % End of article 1 class \documentclass{article} % Start of article 2 class \begin{document} %% Article 2 stuff \end{document} % End of article 2 class %%... % More articles \end{document} % End of journal class LaTeX is somewhat misleading, because each document locality starts with the \documentclass statement (and not \begin{document}), and ends with \end{document} in the description I give here. Also, each locality should be viewed as a document-locality only, separated from the TeX \begingroup ... \endgroup localities. Then, what we are looking for, is a kind of \final attribute, to be attached to definitions like \def and \let. Defining \final\let\foo=\bar would mean: Suppose \foo is defined in the document locality above the one where the statement occurs, then the effect is that \foo is not redefined; otherwise, the \let takes place as usual. So attaching \final to a definition prevents it to be redefined in a document sublevel, but it allows it to be redefined on the same document level. I do not see any immediate, good way of implementing this idea, so lets hear of some suggestions. Hans Aberg * AMS member: Listing * Email: Hans Aberg 6-Oct-1997 8:17:48-GMT,2143;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA21071 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 02:17:47 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA00751; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 09:50:08 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 208599 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 09:50:06 +0200 Received: from perdita.zdv.Uni-Mainz.de (perdita.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.8.147]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA00744 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 09:50:05 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from schoepf@localhost) by perdita.zdv.Uni-Mainz.de (8.8.4/8.8.5) id JAA05354; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 09:50:04 +0200 (MEST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit References: <97100208475917@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> X-Mailer: VM 6.31 under Emacs 19.34.1 Message-ID: <199710060750.JAA05354@perdita.zdv.Uni-Mainz.de> Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 09:50:04 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Rainer Schoepf Organization: Johannes Gutenberg-Universitaet Mainz Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: David writes: > All the files in the latex distribution are checked for the 72 > character limit as part of the Makefile that makes up the > distribution. Last year I changed it to check for 80 characters per line. I'm not going to support mail gateways that cut at 72. Rainer Schöpf 6-Oct-1997 9:41:35-GMT,2691;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA22741 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 03:41:33 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA07591; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 11:12:33 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 208657 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 11:12:30 +0200 Received: from pillar.elsevier.co.uk (root@pillar.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.222.35]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA07574 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 11:12:26 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from snowdon.elsevier.co.uk (snowdon.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.197.164]) by pillar.elsevier.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA28560 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 10:11:22 +0100 (BST) Received: from SRAHTZ (actually host srahtz.elsevier.co.uk) by snowdon.elsevier.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Mon, 6 Oct 1997 10:11:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <97100115382274@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> X-Mailer: VM 6.33 under Emacs 19.34.6 Message-ID: <3997-Mon06Oct1997095918+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 09:59:18 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Sebastian Rahtz Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: Hans Aberg writes: > So it appears that what is needed is a document hierarchy: > \documentclass{journal} % Start of journal class > \begin{document} > > \documentclass{article} % Start of article 1 class > \begin{document} > %% Article 1 stuff > \end{document} % End of article 1 class this has been suggested before now, and there have been attempts at implementation by eg Matt Swift (see TUG 1995 proceedings), and Robin Fairbairns for TUGboat. perhaps Robin could comment on whether/if/why his work foundered? i agree that its an interesting subject... sebastian 6-Oct-1997 10:59:30-GMT,5570;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA23855 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 04:59:28 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA16374; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 12:36:32 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 208730 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 12:36:29 +0200 Received: from pillar.elsevier.co.uk (root@pillar.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.222.35]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA16345 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 12:36:22 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from snowdon.elsevier.co.uk (snowdon.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.197.164]) by pillar.elsevier.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA01715 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 11:35:12 +0100 (BST) Received: from SRAHTZ (actually host srahtz.elsevier.co.uk) by snowdon.elsevier.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Mon, 6 Oct 1997 11:35:31 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <97100208475917@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> X-Mailer: VM 6.33 under Emacs 19.34.6 Message-ID: <3305-Mon06Oct1997113441+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 11:34:41 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Sebastian Rahtz Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: David Carlisle writes: > What is the main purpose of a standard markup convention for journal > articles? > add * to allow sensible conversion to other systems > Some journals give full postal addresses for each author. > Some just give an `affiliation' for each author and highlight one > `corresponding author' for whom full address is given. ... > or some other markup scheme. The question is, does it make sense to > try to have one preprint class that covers both schemes. If such a > class is to guarantee that documents can be run without error on > either production class, then it seems that authors will be asked to > provide lots of `redundant' information such as full address and > affiliation for each author, even though a typical class will only use > one or the other. my immediate reaction is that the pain of doing this is relatively trivial, compared to the advantages. i would expect to supply the full affiliation and address for every author (allowing for 2 or more at the same address, of course), and to mark which is the corresponding author. the production class can throw away the extra addresses if it likes. (by the way, one should consider more structure in addresses, to allow for elision of common elements. consider 4 authors from different departments in a hospital - its nice not to repeat the whole hospital address each time. but i dont have a suggested markup) ... > is cross referenced back to the authors. Does it make sense to try > to capture all these systems with a standard markup scheme. Especially > as author order in some disciplines involves political implications of > `seniority' (In others, authors are always listed alphabetically > irrespective of seniority). > i wouldn't even consider dropping the concept of a single common markup scheme. without that, whats the point of the exercise? i would say that author sorting is up to the production class, god help it. obviously as a minimum you have to mark affiliation differently from postal address (and email); my only question is whether you have to break address down further (see above). so i'd be expecting to see something like \author*{...} % * means main author/corresponding author \affiliation{...} \address{...} \author[a]{...} \affiliation{...} \affiliation[Also affiliated to ]{alternate affiliation} \address{...} \address[Temporary address to June 1999]{alternate address} \author[b]{...} \affiliation{...} \address{...} \author{...} \affiliationlink{a} \addresslink{a} where the notation for re-using addresses is a bit Elsevier-like anothe thing to consider is structure within author. consider the paper by "Professor Hans Eysenck and Dr Sir Lord Dennis The Menace, DD"; it would common to have a running head of Eysenck and Menace which means that the markup should possibly be \author{Professor Hans \surname{Eysenck}} \author{Dr Sir Lord Denis the \surname{Menace}, DD} i'd rather see a specific isolation of known useful elements (ie surname) than any more structured setup. and Hans Eysenck is dead. better make that \author#{Professor Hans \surname{Eysenck}} or ... or ... but as has been said, notation is not so important as function. i would claim we have to distinguish: - author full name from summary form, ie surname - dead authors (commonly marked with a \dag) - corresponding authors - multiple affiliations (with annotation) - multiple address (with affiliation) - common addresses and affiliations sebastian 6-Oct-1997 12:18:04-GMT,2910;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA25099 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 06:18:00 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA13985; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 12:14:59 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 208725 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 12:14:55 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA13967 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 12:14:53 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.113] (sl87.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.113]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id MAA20193 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 12:14:47 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se References: <97100208475917@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 12:14:00 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <199710060750.JAA05354@perdita.zdv.Uni-Mainz.de> >David writes: > > > All the files in the latex distribution are checked for the 72 > > character limit as part of the Makefile that makes up the > > distribution. > >Last year I changed it to check for 80 characters per line. I'm not >going to support mail gateways that cut at 72. If the email gateway cuts at 72, then you are out at luck even if you use MIME, which splits and reassembles lines longer than 76. But I do not think the mail system should be any concern for the line length in LaTeX anymore, since you can use MIME, and if you have many files, these could be sent as an uuencoded .tgz (tar-red and gzip-ped) file attachment, which looks to be some kind of emerging de facto standard for interplatform distributions. If the lines are too long (more than 70-90 characters), then they become hard to read; this should be the concern. Hans Aberg * AMS member: Listing * Email: Hans Aberg 6-Oct-1997 14:00:56-GMT,3687;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA27406 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 08:00:52 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA01722; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:30:33 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 208819 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:30:31 +0200 Received: from heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk (exim@heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.32.11]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA01709 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:30:28 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dorceus.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.1.34] (rf) by heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.70 #3) id 0xIDEl-0004al-00; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 14:30:15 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 14:30:10 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Robin Fairbairns Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: Sebastian's message of "Mon, 06 Oct 1997 09:59:18 BST." <3997-Mon06Oct1997095918+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> Sebastian Rahtz wrote: > Hans Aberg writes: > > So it appears that what is needed is a document hierarchy: > > \documentclass{journal} % Start of journal class > > \begin{document} > > > > \documentclass{article} % Start of article 1 class > > \begin{document} > > %% Article 1 stuff > > \end{document} % End of article 1 class > this has been suggested before now, and there have been attempts at > implementation by eg Matt Swift (see TUG 1995 proceedings), > and Robin Fairbairns for TUGboat. perhaps Robin could comment on > whether/if/why his work foundered? Matt Swift wrote an includex package that goes a lot of the way towards this requirement, and I use it regularly for private work. My version is somewhat hacked from the latest he's sent me, and IIRC the version on CTAN (in macros/latex/contrib/other/swift) is different again; he knows (or knew) about all the changes I made for my requirements. Whether this thing meets the general requirement is another matter: I use it for editing my father's letters from India 1941-45. I looked at using it for TUGboat, but it didn't quite meet the requirement, since regular issues of TUGboat run articles together on the same page. It would work OK for proceedings issues, but they're sooo much easier to produce than the regular issues that it didn't seem worth while. I haven't heard from him in ages, but if an appetite developed for this sort of thing, I could try to obtain permission from him and post my hacked version. Matt and I discussed the practicalities at some length a while back, and I've completely forgotten all the technical details of what he said. His ambition was an \include-like system that allows you to include stuff at arbitrary positions on the page, which is what TUGboat actually needs. However, this is (ahem) rather tricky, and the last version he sent me of his newclude package (which he said was going to do it) omitted the tricky bits... Robin 6-Oct-1997 14:16:09-GMT,2602;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA27792 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 08:16:07 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA03198; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:48:38 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 208835 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:48:34 +0200 Received: from pillar.elsevier.co.uk (root@pillar.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.222.35]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA03181 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:48:24 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from snowdon.elsevier.co.uk (snowdon.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.197.164]) by pillar.elsevier.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA09633 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 14:46:50 +0100 (BST) Received: from SRAHTZ (actually host srahtz.elsevier.co.uk) by snowdon.elsevier.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Mon, 6 Oct 1997 14:46:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <3997-Mon06Oct1997095918+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> X-Mailer: VM 6.33 under Emacs 19.34.6 Message-ID: <9083-Mon06Oct1997144554+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 14:45:54 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Sebastian Rahtz Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: > I looked at using it for TUGboat, but it didn't quite meet the > requirement, since regular issues of TUGboat run articles together on > the same page. It would work OK for proceedings issues, but they're Barbara Beeton has talked about this often as well, and it always seems to founder on the rock of changing document in mid page. you wouldnt *think* it was so hard, would you? Perhaps some one with a fresh mind and some time to spare should take up the cudgels and have another crack at \includex Sebastian 6-Oct-1997 14:44:06-GMT,2870;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA28566 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 08:43:49 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA04757; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 16:08:17 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 208852 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 16:08:15 +0200 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (punt-2b.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.6]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA04745 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 16:08:13 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dcarlisle.demon.co.uk ([194.222.187.145]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1222492; 6 Oct 97 15:00 BST Received: by dcarlisle.demon.co.uk id m0xIDpD-000OWEC (Debian Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #2); Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:07:55 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:07:55 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: David Carlisle Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <3305-Mon06Oct1997113441+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> (message from Sebastian Rahtz on Mon, 6 Oct 1997 11:34:41 +0100) > my immediate reaction is that the pain of doing this is relatively > trivial, compared to the advantages. Ah, but I fear your opinion here doesn't count:-) I know you'd rather have the authors validate their manuscripts against a DTD by SP or some such, but the question is whether authors will do it... If a `preprint' class for this markup *enforces* a suitably rich markup by generating errors if insufficent information is provided then it may not be too popular with authors. If on the otherhand it takes a more permissive approach, for instance not complaining too much as long as some kind of address is given in either affiliation or address commands, and just using whichever is available, then the useability of manuscripts prepared as preprints with production classes that do *require* certain fields would be much reduced. I think that for a first approach I should aim to be `strict' but I'd be interested to know what are the views of potential authors (as opposed to publishers) > I would claim we have to distinguish: > .. Thanks, that is a useful classification. David 6-Oct-1997 14:58:13-GMT,3096;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA28959 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 08:58:10 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA06555; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 16:33:16 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 208871 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 16:33:11 +0200 Received: from pillar.elsevier.co.uk (root@pillar.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.222.35]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA06537 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 16:33:02 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from snowdon.elsevier.co.uk (snowdon.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.197.164]) by pillar.elsevier.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA11748 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:32:12 +0100 (BST) Received: from SRAHTZ (actually host srahtz.elsevier.co.uk) by snowdon.elsevier.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:32:06 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <3305-Mon06Oct1997113441+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> X-Mailer: VM 6.33 under Emacs 19.34.6 Message-ID: <1291-Mon06Oct1997153121+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:31:21 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Sebastian Rahtz Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: > Ah, but I fear your opinion here doesn't count:-) I know you'd rather i am an author too... :-} (and I know that getting the front matter right is just trivial compared to the rest of the paper) > If on the otherhand it takes a more permissive approach, for instance > not complaining too much as long as some kind of address is given in > either affiliation or address commands, and just using whichever is > available, then the useability of manuscripts prepared as preprints > with production classes that do *require* certain fields would be much > reduced. > i don't mind people lazily omitting fields, but what I *do* mind is them writing: \author{ ...\footnotemark{\ddag}} ..... \footnotetext{\ddag}{Corresponding author, current address The Moon} ie i can cope with missing information, but not with visual formatting masquerading as logical markup so allow people to leave stuff out, but try and stop them inserting horrors into what they do write. BAN THE \thanks COMMAND!!!!! Sebastian 6-Oct-1997 17:31:26-GMT,5051;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA03866 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 11:31:24 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA19789; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 19:10:22 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 208955 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 19:10:17 +0200 Received: from math.ams.org (math.ams.org [130.44.210.14]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA19781 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 19:10:12 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from axp14.ams.org by math.ams.org via smtpd (for relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) with SMTP; 6 Oct 1997 17:10:12 UT Received: from epsilon.ams.org by AXP14.AMS.ORG (PMDF V5.1-8 #1) with SMTP id <01IOHKEJN0BK001NMH@AXP14.AMS.ORG> for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 13:10:10 EST Received: by epsilon.ams.org; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/12Oct95-1155AM) id AA20225; Mon, 06 Oct 1997 13:10:09 -0400 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Lines: 64 References: Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 13:10:08 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Michael John Downes Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: David Carlisle's message of Mon, 06 Oct 1997 15:35:57 +0100 > You can more or less get (1) by just having the master class redefine > \documentclass to do nothing, re-enable \usepackage for use by the > articles, and just set up whatever typographic details are needed to > handle the `front matter' of the individual articles when considered > as sections in the larger work. If you put each article in a group the save stack can take a serious hit. This used to cause trouble for us on occasion when doing the book reviews section in one of our journals. Partial blame, however, was eventually laid to some unnecessary carelessness with the save stack in certain macros. And as the capacity of TeX systems continues to grow, the save stack may practically speaking cease to be a concern. > There are problems when you start to consider packages used by the > different articles clashing, and issues relating to avoiding namespace > clashes with \label etc, but they are not insurmountable (probably:-). Nevertheless imho they are troublesome enough that a better approach would be to set up a system of communicating between the different parts through an auxiliary file. At the end of the first part, measure the actual depth of the last page and pass it to the next article, along with the current page number and whatever else is needed. This means using an OS-specific script to process the whole collection instead of a single LaTeX run, but you avoid so many other problems that it's worth it. Ad hoc customization for individual parts done by different authors, such as \mathcode`\"=8000 \begingroup \catcode`\"=\active \gdef"{^{\prime\prime}} \endgroup will make trouble even if each article is enclosed in its own group and there are many ways for this kind of trouble to come up. > 2) A generalised \include/\includeonly system that does not force the > \clearpage as in the current implementation. > (2) is harder and perhaps not even possible in full generality, > depending on what you want to specify happens to floats, whether or > not they are allowed to float out of or into regions of the document > that are potentially not included. Understood; but isn't it true that the floats will get printed in any case (in the next really included portion, or at \end{document})? The worst scenario that I can see is some floats from section 3 get printed in section 5 if the user didn't happen to include section 4 on this particular LaTeX run. Will this happen often enough in practice to really be a problem? And if \include didn't include a \clearpage it would be easy enough to add one in front of the \include statements that needed it, whereas taking it out isn't so easy. I suppose this idea has been suggested before?: At an \include boundary, take all the floats in \@toplist, \@botlist, \@deferlist and set them at the end of the preceding text as `here!' floats, with enough stretch in the inter-float space to get through any page-breaking problems. Isn't the main unsolved problem for \include making sure that non-immediate \write's go to the proper .aux file? Michael Downes 6-Oct-1997 17:57:11-GMT,3466;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA04456 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 11:57:09 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA21501; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 19:40:09 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 208982 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 19:40:07 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA21488 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 19:40:04 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.113] (sl106.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.132]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id TAA00553 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 19:40:02 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se References: (message from Robin Fairbairns on Mon, 6 Oct 1997 14:30:10 +0100) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 19:40:20 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: >> an \include-like system that allows you to >> include stuff at arbitrary positions on the page, which is what >> TUGboat actually needs. > >Why do you need an \include? or in particular why do you need an >\includeonly ? Tugboat isn't so long is it? > >There seem to be two issues >1) making a `master class' that can pull a series of separate articles > each from a separate file. Each of these `article files' should be a > self contained document that may be processed independantly > (although of necessity with a different class and perhaps a > slightly different look to the output when processed independantly). > >2) A generalised \include/\includeonly system that does not force the > \clearpage as in the current implementation. > > >It seems you can have 1) without 2). I think the problem here is the way LaTeX produces aux-files: If the main file foo.tex \include's subfile bar.tex, then there will be a file named bar.aux with bar's references, which forces the \clearpage stuff, otherwise the page references cannot be computed properly. I suggested this should be changed, so that all those references are put in foo.aux. Then one can also have features such as using \bar.tex as a main file for subfile compilation while writing on a manuscript. (The idea was to have a LaTeX command \project{foo} to put in the file bar.tex.) So, unless this is changed, I think 1 and 2 above are somewhat intertwined. Hans Aberg * AMS member: Listing * Email: Hans Aberg 6-Oct-1997 18:00:08-GMT,1902;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA04563 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 12:00:06 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA21552; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 19:41:21 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 208985 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 19:41:20 +0200 Received: from vms.rhbnc.ac.uk (alpha1.rhbnc.ac.uk [134.219.201.113]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA21544 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 19:41:17 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <971006184117.8c92@vms.rhbnc.ac.uk> Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 18:41:17 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: "Philip Taylor (RHBNC)" Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L >> Ad hoc customization for individual parts done by different authors, >> such as % \mathcode`\"=8000 % \begingroup % \catcode`\"=\active % \gdef"{^{\prime\prime}} % \endgroup >> will make trouble even if each article is enclosed in its own group and >> there are many ways for this kind of trouble to come up. Isn't this the sort of construct that LaTeX implicitly proscribes? If there were a clean LaTeX method (there probably is!) for achieving the effect without the need for \global hacks, then all would be well. ** Phil. 6-Oct-1997 19:58:09-GMT,1901;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA07771 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 13:58:07 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA28818; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 21:39:00 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 209087 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 21:38:57 +0200 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1b.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.135]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA28811 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 21:38:56 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dcarlisle.demon.co.uk ([194.222.187.145]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa0926201; 6 Oct 97 19:34 BST Received: by dcarlisle.demon.co.uk id m0xIGAB-000OWEC (Debian Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #2); Mon, 6 Oct 1997 17:37:43 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 17:37:43 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: David Carlisle Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <1291-Mon06Oct1997153121+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> (message from Sebastian Rahtz on Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:31:21 +0100) > but try and stop them inserting horrors into what they do write Sadly more of an SGML concept than a (La)TeX one. David 6-Oct-1997 20:51:57-GMT,1976;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA09355 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 14:51:55 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA02080; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 22:33:33 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 209120 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 22:33:29 +0200 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1c.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.136]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA02067 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 22:33:26 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dcarlisle.demon.co.uk ([194.222.187.145]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1019318; 6 Oct 97 20:21 BST Received: by dcarlisle.demon.co.uk id m0xIINm-000OWEC (Debian Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #2); Mon, 6 Oct 1997 19:59:54 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 19:59:54 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: David Carlisle Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <971006184117.8c92@vms.rhbnc.ac.uk> (CHAA006@VMS.RHBNC.AC.UK) > If there were a clean LaTeX method (there probably is!) > for achieving the effect without the need for \global hacks, then > all would be well. \begingroup \uccode`\~`\" \uppercase{\endgroup \def~}{^{\prime\prime}} I leave it to others to judge how clean this is:-) 6-Oct-1997 21:11:59-GMT,4158;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA09887 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:11:58 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA02849; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 22:48:31 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 209134 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 22:48:29 +0200 Received: from kralle.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (kralle.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.8.158]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA02842 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 22:48:28 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from Ufrank@localhost) by kralle.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA13746 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 22:48:28 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kralle.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE: Ufrank set sender to latex3 using -f Received: (from latex3@localhost) by frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de (8.6.9/8.6.9) id WAA00429; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 22:36:24 +0100 References: <3997-Mon06Oct1997095918+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> <9083-Mon06Oct1997144554+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> Message-ID: <199710062136.WAA00429@frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de> Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 22:36:24 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Frank Mittelbach Subject: Extended include To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <9083-Mon06Oct1997144554+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> i really wonder why discussions always stick with one subject. discussing mime advantages might be interesting but when i scan my archives later for LaTeX journal classes finding all that stuff under this heading ... anyway Sebastian Rahtz writes: > > I looked at using it for TUGboat, but it didn't quite meet the > > requirement, since regular issues of TUGboat run articles together on > > the same page. It would work OK for proceedings issues, but they're > > Barbara Beeton has talked about this often as well, and it always > seems to founder on the rock of changing document in mid page. you > wouldnt *think* it was so hard, would you? > > Perhaps some one with a fresh mind and some time to spare should take > up the cudgels and have another crack at \includex it is not that hard but is it really worth the effort? it is hard enough :-) what you need to do is: 1) capture the exact position on the page when some \includex file ends; this means stretch and shrink etc 2) capture the content info of all internal float lists, ie type of float size etc then when you exclude some file you finish the current page (assuming that start page of your exclusion is not equal end page of your exclusion) then you start a new page in a what that you end up at exactly the point as given by 1) (which is the real hard bit and which will be wrong for a long time even after reading and reading output routine chapter in the TeX book :-) and you make sure that your info about 2) is used to replace the float lists. and this is basically it. only point is and David pointed this out already: how accurate is the result? normally what you will produce is rubbish, any or nearly any change in preceeding includes will make everything obsolete. this is bad enough with the current \include but there in most cases it does work reasonably well. but here? what do you gain? you gain processing speed as you go along since you can work from front to back and only process one include at a time (unless you have forward references which change your earlier material .... so? any takers? frank 6-Oct-1997 21:59:22-GMT,5300;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA11165 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:59:20 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA05213; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 23:36:02 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 209165 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 23:35:58 +0200 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1d.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.138]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA05204 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 23:35:53 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dcarlisle.demon.co.uk ([194.222.187.145]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1019284; 6 Oct 97 20:21 BST Received: by dcarlisle.demon.co.uk id m0xIIlS-000OWFC (Debian Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #2); Mon, 6 Oct 1997 20:24:22 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 20:24:22 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: David Carlisle Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: (message from Hans Aberg on Mon, 6 Oct 1997 19:40:20 +0200) Hans> So, unless this is changed, I think 1 and 2 above are somewhat Hans> intertwined. but my point was that for something of tugboat length why do you need to \include (as opposed to \input) the separate articles. In that case questions of separate aux files do not arise. Other comments from Michael > If you put each article in a group the save stack can take a serious > hit I had in mind to not group the articles, but to explicitly check that certain document-critical things are not changed by one of the `sub documents' eg if the page size or default font setup gets changed by one chapter then complain loudly. > Nevertheless imho they are troublesome enough that a better approach > would be to set up a system of communicating between the different parts > through an auxiliary file. Ah. interesting. In general this would mean that the page break calculations at the end of the article do not `see' what is coming up in the next article, but TeX's page break lookahead is so pitiful compared to its line break algorithm perhaps you are not losing so much. > At the end of the first part, measure the > actual depth of the last page and pass it to the next article, along > with the current page number and whatever else is needed. So this implicitly implies (I think) that no float will float into or out of a region that may be \included. For sub articles that is probably anyway what you want but people often seem to ask for a general include system acting on arbitrary portions of the document just as a technical convenience to avoid re-compiling every time. > This means using an OS-specific script or another cousin to docstrip and fontinst:-) > Understood; but isn't it true that the floats will get printed in any > case (in the next really included portion, or at \end{document})? The > worst scenario that I can see is some floats from section 3 get printed > in section 5 if the user didn't happen to include section 4 on this > particular LaTeX run. Will this happen often enough in practice to > really be a problem? my point was that in a situation where the included files do not form a logical `float boundary' (I think boom is the term used for oil slicks:-) then if a float comes out of a section into the following part of the document then if that section is not included on some run, the source for the float is not available and so it is hard to see how to leave the space for it in the later parts. If page breaks are not faithfully reproduced there does not seem to be much point in an \include system and you may as well use \input. (It would be possible for the aux file to record the size of all pending floats at an \include). I return to my original point. Most of the difficulties of \include relate to \includeonly, ie the potential for *not* including certain sections. The case of just wanting to `include' certain independent units (but to include all of them) is not really directly related. > take all the floats in \@toplist, \@botlist, > \@deferlist and set them at the end of the preceding text as `here!' yes some kind of \flushfloats command would be generally useful to put at the end of sections, again independant of \include. I think I once saw such a command. Chris? Donald Arseneau?, you? > Isn't the main unsolved problem for \include making sure that non-immediate > \write's go to the proper .aux file? Pah, write then all to the main aux file (with a note to say which bit they come from, if that is needed) (not that I've tried coding it that way:-) David 6-Oct-1997 16:10:00-GMT,3633;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA01358 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 10:09:57 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA12107; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 17:38:16 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 208928 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 17:38:13 +0200 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1d.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.138]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA12087 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 17:38:02 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dcarlisle.demon.co.uk ([194.222.187.145]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa0921008; 6 Oct 97 15:38 BST Received: by dcarlisle.demon.co.uk id m0xIEGL-000OWEC (Debian Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #2); Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:35:57 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:35:57 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: David Carlisle Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: (message from Robin Fairbairns on Mon, 6 Oct 1997 14:30:10 +0100) > an \include-like system that allows you to > include stuff at arbitrary positions on the page, which is what > TUGboat actually needs. Why do you need an \include? or in particular why do you need an \includeonly ? Tugboat isn't so long is it? There seem to be two issues 1) making a `master class' that can pull a series of separate articles each from a separate file. Each of these `article files' should be a self contained document that may be processed independantly (although of necessity with a different class and perhaps a slightly different look to the output when processed independantly). 2) A generalised \include/\includeonly system that does not force the \clearpage as in the current implementation. It seems you can have 1) without 2). You can more or less get (1) by just having the master class redefine \documentclass to do nothing, re-enable \usepackage for use by the articles, and just set up whatever typographic details are needed to handle the `front matter' of the individual articles when considered as sections in the larger work. There are problems when you start to consider packages used by the different articles clashing, and issues relating to avoiding namespace clashes with \label etc, but they are not insurmountable (probably:-). However if you miss out one of the articles then page breaks etc will all change. (Unless you force each article starts on a new page and use \include.) (2) is harder and perhaps not even possible in full generality, depending on what you want to specify happens to floats, whether or not they are allowed to float out of or into regions of the document that are potentially not included. (One of the main reasons why the current \include forces a \clearpage before and after the included section is so you don't have to worry about floats crossing these boundaries.) David 6-Oct-1997 22:45:11-GMT,4775;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA12488 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 16:45:09 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id AAA07757; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 00:27:08 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 209212 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 00:27:05 +0200 Received: from heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk (exim@heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.32.11]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id AAA07736 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 00:27:03 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dorceus.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.1.34] (rf) by heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.70 #3) id 0xIFix-0007lR-00; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 17:09:35 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 17:09:34 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Robin Fairbairns Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 06 Oct 1997 15:35:57 BST." > > an \include-like system that allows you to > > include stuff at arbitrary positions on the page, which is what > > TUGboat actually needs. > > Why do you need an \include? or in particular why do you need an > \includeonly ? Tugboat isn't so long is it? I'm using an \include mechanism for my own personal work because there are >600 of these letters. TUGboat certainly doesn't need it: it creeps into the discussion from Matt Swift's vaulting ambition. > There seem to be two issues > 1) making a `master class' that can pull a series of separate articles > each from a separate file. Each of these `article files' should be a > self contained document that may be processed independantly > (although of necessity with a different class and perhaps a > slightly different look to the output when processed independantly). This, in essence, is what I use for the letters. Somewhat less formal than a proper class, but... > 2) A generalised \include/\includeonly system that does not force the > \clearpage as in the current implementation. > > It seems you can have 1) without 2). Yes. > You can more or less get (1) by just having the master class redefine > \documentclass to do nothing, re-enable \usepackage for use by the > articles, and just set up whatever typographic details are needed to > handle the `front matter' of the individual articles when considered > as sections in the larger work. The current thing doesn't re-enable \usepackage, and also causes \end{document} to ignore the rest of the file. I did think about \usepackage, but I don't actually need it myself... > There are problems when you start to consider packages used by the > different articles clashing, Wouldn't happen to me, since every file is from a common skeleton. > and issues relating to avoiding namespace > clashes with \label etc, but they are not insurmountable (probably:-). Name spaces are a real pain. > However if you miss out one of the articles then page breaks etc will > all change. (Unless you force each article starts on a new page and > use \include.) > > (2) is harder and perhaps not even possible in full generality, > depending on what you want to specify happens to floats, whether or > not they are allowed to float out of or into regions of the document > that are potentially not included. (One of the main reasons why the > current \include forces a \clearpage before and after the included > section is so you don't have to worry about floats crossing these > boundaries.) If you're setting a journal in LaTeX (I've got clients who really do do this -- it's not just TUG), you need to be *very* careful about what your floats are up to. You don't meekly take whatever LaTeX offers, and accept the result. Indeed, one class I've written actually complains if there are floats outstanding when it comes to \end{document}. I don't, therefore, regard floats as the main issue. However, whether Matt's generalised \include is actually achievable (even if one ignores floats), I'm still not sure. Matt certainly doesn't seem to be working on it any more. Robin 6-Oct-1997 22:46:03-GMT,2437;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA12512 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 16:46:01 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id AAA07810; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 00:28:43 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 209220 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 00:28:42 +0200 Received: from heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk (exim@heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.32.11]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id AAA07745 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 00:27:05 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dorceus.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.1.34] (rf) by heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.70 #3) id 0xIG1o-0007kz-00; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 17:29:04 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 17:29:03 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Robin Fairbairns Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 06 Oct 1997 15:31:21 BST." <1291-Mon06Oct1997153121+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> > i don't mind people lazily omitting fields, but what I *do* mind is them > writing: > > \author{ ...\footnotemark{\ddag}} > ..... > \footnotetext{\ddag}{Corresponding author, current address The Moon} > > ie i can cope with missing information, but not with visual formatting > masquerading as logical markup Quite so. Bane of everyone's life, is this visual formatting. > so allow people to leave stuff out, but try and stop them inserting > horrors into what they do write. BAN THE \thanks COMMAND!!!!! Banning \thanks merely encourages them to write the rubbish out by hand, as you so eloquently suggest above. Short of making each and every command blow up in subtle ways I don't see how you stop people from doing daft things like this. Robin 6-Oct-1997 22:52:37-GMT,3463;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA12707 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 16:52:35 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id AAA08246; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 00:35:26 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 209223 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 00:35:24 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA08231 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 00:35:23 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.113] (sl04.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.24]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id AAA19164 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 00:35:20 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se References: <9083-Mon06Oct1997144554+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> <3997-Mon06Oct1997095918+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> <9083-Mon06Oct1997144554+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 00:11:58 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: Re: Extended include To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <199710062136.WAA00429@frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de> Frank Mittelbach writes: > > Barbara Beeton has talked about this often as well, and it always > > seems to founder on the rock of changing document in mid page. you > > wouldnt *think* it was so hard, would you? > > > > Perhaps some one with a fresh mind and some time to spare should take > > up the cudgels and have another crack at \includex > >it is not that hard but is it really worth the effort? it is hard >enough :-) > >what you need to do is: > > 1) capture the exact position on the page when some \includex file >ends; this means stretch and shrink etc > > 2) capture the content info of all internal float lists, ie type of > float size etc > >then when you exclude some file you finish the current page (assuming >that start page of your exclusion is not equal end page of your >exclusion) then you start a new page in a what that you end up at >exactly the point as given by 1) (which is the real hard bit and which >will be wrong for a long time even after reading and reading output >routine chapter in the TeX book :-) and you make sure that your info >about 2) is used to replace the float lists. > >and this is basically it. Could you give some hints of why this stuff is needed? It can't be in order to merely keep the references right, because that could be solved by avoiding having multiple aux files. Hans Aberg * AMS member: Listing * Email: Hans Aberg 6-Oct-1997 23:05:00-GMT,2475;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA13029 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 17:04:58 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id AAA08749; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 00:42:54 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 209226 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 00:42:53 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA08737 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 00:42:51 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.113] (sl04.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.24]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id AAA19590 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 00:42:50 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se References: (message from Hans Aberg on Mon, 6 Oct 1997 19:40:20 +0200) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 00:42:52 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: At 20:24 +0100 97/10/06, David Carlisle wrote: >> Isn't the main unsolved problem for \include making sure that non-immediate >> \write's go to the proper .aux file? > >Pah, write then all to the main aux file (with a note to say which bit >they come from, if that is needed) (not that I've tried coding it that >way:-) I have not followed that gory float stuff, but this is what I am saying: Are there any reasons for LaTeX having multiple AUX files? Hans Aberg * AMS member: Listing * Email: Hans Aberg 7-Oct-1997 5:24:19-GMT,4082;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA21298 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 23:24:17 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id HAA21813; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 07:03:35 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 209363 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 07:03:33 +0200 Received: from acs-mail.bu.edu (root@ACS-MAIL.BU.EDU [128.197.153.100]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA21805 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 07:03:31 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from aleph.swift.xxx (PPP-74-5.BU.EDU [128.197.7.121]) by acs-mail.bu.edu (8.8.5/BU_Server-1.3) with ESMTP id BAA115780 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 01:03:09 -0400 Received: from aleph (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aleph.swift.xxx (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA12302 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 01:03:25 -0400 X-Emacs: Emacs 20.2, MULE 3.0 (MOMIJINOGA) Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI MIME-Edit 0.86 "Naka-Tsurugi") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Message-ID: <199710070503.BAA12302@aleph.swift.xxx> Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 01:03:24 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Matthew Swift Subject: Re: Extended include To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 06 Oct 1997 22:36:24 BST." <199710062136.WAA00429@frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de> Hi folks! By a happy coincidence I spotted "extended include" rolling by in a log of mail which gets archived without me ever getting to it these days, which includes TeX mail. I've been submerged in other nonsense for ages, that is why Robin hasn't heard from me and no more work has been done on the newclude package that he mentioned. Includex was a hack and I began to write newclude as a more respectable user- and developer-friendly piece of code once I thought I had solved the stickier problems. It turned out I couldn't quite make the grade, and I never ended up with a solid solution. I was working out two entirely different implementations, one that was relatively complicated and used multiple aux files (static stream assignment was simple, it was the dynamic assignment that got hairy), and one that was simpler and used but a single aux file. There were certain functional limitations on each solution, so I worked on both, though the user interface was the same. As I remember, I ran up against two difficulties, though I don't remember how they were distributed between the two methods. One was the page break problem that's been mentioned in this thread. It sounds like Frank has a far stronger grasp on what to do about that than I ever had. The second problem occurred when a user aborted the LaTeX run under certain conditions, leaving an unclosed group in the aux file, which would break the next LaTeX run. I agree with Frank that it's an important question whether doing this work in LaTeX is worth it. With the universality of Perl and other text processors these days, the portability argument is weakened. I suggest I try to publish to this group the code, documentation, and notes I have lying around on this subject. I'll bring includex up to date with Robin's fixes. He's right that despite it being such a hack it still does things newclude doesn't do. And I'll release newclude; it's functional, clean, and documented, I just never got it robust enough to want to release it. Best wishes to all Matt 7-Oct-1997 7:27:55-GMT,3399;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA23570 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 01:27:53 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA01613; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 09:02:13 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 209397 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 09:02:07 +0200 Received: from ifi.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de (ifi.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de [129.69.211.1]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA01549 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 09:02:01 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by isidor.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 09:01:57 +0200 (MET DST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <971006184117.8c92@vms.rhbnc.ac.uk> X-Mailer: VM 6.33 under Emacs 19.34.1 Message-ID: <199710070701.JAA12026@isidor.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de> Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 09:01:57 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Bernd Raichle Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <971006184117.8c92@vms.rhbnc.ac.uk> On Mon, 6 October 1997 18:41:17 +0100, Philip Taylor (RHBNC) writes: [...] > % \mathcode`\"=8000 > % \begingroup > % \catcode`\"=\active > % \gdef"{^{\prime\prime}} > % \endgroup > > >> will make trouble even if each article is enclosed in its own group and > >> there are many ways for this kind of trouble to come up. > > Isn't this the sort of construct that LaTeX implicitly proscribes? > If there were a clean LaTeX method (there probably is!) for achieving > the effect without the need for \global hacks, then all would be well. In a lot of these cases \global hacks aren't necessary! If you are using some group matching hacks using explicit braces and implicit braces/begingroup/endgroup tokens which are nested as in the following code \mathcode`\"=8000 \begingroup \catcode`\"=\active \toks0={\endgroup \def "{^\prime\prime}% } \the\toks0\relax you are able to control which assignments/definitions will be active at the end of the code without using global assignments. I have used this technique for `german.sty' since years, thus you can load this macro file inside a group and if this group is closed _all_ changes are gone (except of all register allocations which are always done globally). Additionally I have tried to spread this technique, but have missed the best way: to publish it in TUGboat :-( -bernd ____________________________________________________________________ Bernd Raichle "Le langage est source DANTE e.V., Koordinator `german.sty' de malentendus" email: german@dante.de (A. de Saint-Exupery) 7-Oct-1997 8:00:08-GMT,2761;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA24114 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 02:00:07 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA07618; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 09:34:43 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 209413 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 09:34:38 +0200 Received: from acs-mail.bu.edu (root@ACS-MAIL.BU.EDU [128.197.153.100]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA06337 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 09:28:02 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from aleph.swift.xxx (PPP-74-5.BU.EDU [128.197.7.121]) by acs-mail.bu.edu (8.8.5/BU_Server-1.3) with ESMTP id DAA76148 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 03:27:43 -0400 Received: from aleph (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aleph.swift.xxx (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA13811 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 03:27:58 -0400 X-Emacs: Emacs 20.2, MULE 3.0 (MOMIJINOGA) Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI MIME-Edit 0.86 "Naka-Tsurugi") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Message-ID: <199710070727.DAA13811@aleph.swift.xxx> Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 03:27:58 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Matthew Swift Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 07 Oct 1997 00:42:52 +0200." >>>>> "H" == Hans Aberg writes: H> Are there any reasons for LaTeX having multiple AUX H> files? They are only necessary in an \includeonly scenario. Some system state (counters only at this point) from the UNincluded files is stored in the aux files. Otherwise they would be overwritten. Unless this information were recognized in the sole aux file and resaved when the part is not included. I tried coding this. It wasn't hard to get almost right. If you abort LaTeX in the middle of an included file, you are in trouble because you are left with an unclosed group in your aux file. See my accompanying post and pointer to the code and documentation of my partial solution. 7-Oct-1997 8:01:57-GMT,3098;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA24144 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 02:01:55 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA07918; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 09:36:14 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 209416 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 09:36:11 +0200 Received: from acs-mail.bu.edu (root@ACS-MAIL.BU.EDU [128.197.153.100]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA07692 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 09:35:10 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from aleph.swift.xxx (PPP-74-5.BU.EDU [128.197.7.121]) by acs-mail.bu.edu (8.8.5/BU_Server-1.3) with ESMTP id DAA128782 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 03:34:49 -0400 Received: from aleph (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aleph.swift.xxx (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA13867 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 03:35:05 -0400 X-Emacs: Emacs 20.2, MULE 3.0 (MOMIJINOGA) Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI MIME-Edit 0.86 "Naka-Tsurugi") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Message-ID: <199710070735.DAA13867@aleph.swift.xxx> Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 03:35:04 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Matthew Swift Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 06 Oct 1997 20:24:22 BST." >>>>> "D" == David Carlisle writes: D> Pah, write then all to the main aux file (with a note to say D> which bit they come from, if that is needed) (not that I've D> tried coding it that way:-) You do need the note in an \includeonly scenario. You can't group them, as I tried to do, because if you abort LaTeX during the included part you get an unclosed group in the aux file, which then crashes LaTeX next run. OK, so you tag each and every \write with its part, to avoid using a grouping construct to enclose them. Or instead of using grouping you set state with flags like \NowWritesAreComingFromThisFile{filename} in series in the main aux file. Well, those sound like good ideas to me. Either I have thought of them before or I haven't. If I haven't, then coming back to the problem after a very long time I suddenly see the easy right solution. But likely I did try them and ran into some trouble that I just can't remember any more. You can be the judge. See my accompanying post for the macros. 7-Oct-1997 8:15:14-GMT,4918;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA24412 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 02:15:10 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA09857; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 09:46:16 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 209476 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 09:46:13 +0200 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (punt-2b.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.6]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA09552 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 09:44:42 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dcarlisle.demon.co.uk ([194.222.187.145]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1507814; 7 Oct 97 8:36 BST Received: by dcarlisle.demon.co.uk id m0xIMtx-000OWGC (Debian Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #2); Tue, 7 Oct 1997 00:49:25 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 00:49:25 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: David Carlisle Subject: Re: Extended include To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: (message from Hans Aberg on Tue, 7 Oct 1997 00:11:58 +0200) > Could you give some hints of why this stuff is needed? It can't be in > order to merely keep the references right, because that could be solved by > avoiding having multiple aux files. To get references right means that the page breaks need to be the same even if some sections are not included. That means keeping track of where the floats would have floated to had they been included. Even if there are no floats, you need to know how far down the page each section should start so the page breaks work out the same again. \pageref is a harder beast to deal with than \ref, but \include doesn't just aim to keep references correct, but to keep all the typesetting of the included sections correct. So there is work to do even if there are no floats and no cross references. You need to know where on the page each section starts if you give up forcing that it starts at the top of the page. > I have not followed that gory float stuff, but this is what I am saying: > Are there any reasons for LaTeX having multiple AUX files? Yes there are several good reasons. It is (perhaps) not impossible to avoid the use of multiple aux files but it is not entirely trivial. In particular if a section is not included then currently its .aux file hangs around for use in later runs. If the information for the section is written to the main aux file then it will need to be copied if that section is omitted, but how to copy from the old aux file to the new one? either you store the full list in memory or you have to have two aux files and keep switching from one to the other, or... Similarly the separate aux files store the counter resetting information to use when a section is skipped. Being in separate files means the .aux file can be input at the appropriate time (in place of the skipped file). If all the information is in one file either that file has to be read multiple times, or all the information needs to be held in memory so the counters can be reset when needed. However Why do people use \include? Some possible answers 1) By mistake, when they meant to use \input. 2) To speed up processing of drafts as only the `current chapter' need be processed. 3) To cope with big jobs where running the whole document in one go runs out of memory. I think (1) is probably the most common reason. (2) is not relevant if you are using a class where the individual sections are self contained documents. To just work on section1 you don't need to go \includeonly{section1} you can just go latex section1.tex So that leaves (3). But (3) is usually a forlorn hope. Often the reason for running out of memory on big jobs are too many \labels. As \include always reads all the \label info from the aux files, it does not help here at all. The only time it can help if the separate chapters use different large packages, eg if section1 uses pictex and section2 uses xypic, you may gain a bit by using \includeonly to process the sections in separate jobs. But here again probably you usually run out of register allocations before you run out of csnames, and that can be fixed by a better allocation scheme (or fixing pictex not to waste so many registers). David 7-Oct-1997 8:46:20-GMT,3283;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA25208 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 02:46:16 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA13865; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 10:08:56 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 209525 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 10:08:53 +0200 Received: from acs-mail.bu.edu (root@ACS-MAIL.BU.EDU [128.197.153.100]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA13821 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 10:08:43 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from aleph.swift.xxx (PPP-74-5.BU.EDU [128.197.7.121]) by acs-mail.bu.edu (8.8.5/BU_Server-1.3) with ESMTP id EAA92254 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 04:08:13 -0400 Received: from aleph (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aleph.swift.xxx (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA14156 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 04:08:21 -0400 X-Emacs: Emacs 20.2, MULE 3.0 (MOMIJINOGA) Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI MIME-Edit 0.86 "Naka-Tsurugi") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Message-ID: <199710070808.EAA14156@aleph.swift.xxx> Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 04:08:20 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Matthew Swift Subject: Re: newclude macros available To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 07 Oct 1997 03:45:36 EDT." Oops. I just replaced newclude.tgz with one that also includes prebuilt documentation files newclude.dvi and moredefs.dvi. I forgot that to build the documentation as I suggested requires almost the entire corpus of my Frankenstein bundle. >>>>> "M" == Matthew Swift writes: M> http://web.mit.edu/tkd/newclude.tgz M> contains my attempt at implementing a new \include system. M> The tar file unpacks into ./newclude. M> In ./newclude, type "make newclude.dvi" to get documentation on M> the code and discussion of the problems, various solutions I M> attempted, and their limitations and failures. Some macros M> aren't well documented, but most are, since I got this package M> pretty close to release quality. M> Sorry I don't have a good test file. In this case one is not M> too hard to make. M> You must cp *.sto *.sty to where LaTeX can find them. M> Note -- I'm still using LaTeX 1996/12/1 patchlevel 1, so M> perhaps something is broken with later versions. Newclude M> naturally redefines some basic \include and \write macros in M> the kernel. You can grow old doing sysadmin, and in my old age M> I let Thomas Esser handle the majority of my TeX installation M> for me. M> Matt Swift 7-Oct-1997 8:53:27-GMT,2349;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA25330 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 02:53:23 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA15888; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 10:18:50 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 209538 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 10:18:44 +0200 Received: from acs-mail.bu.edu (root@ACS-MAIL.BU.EDU [128.197.153.100]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA15866 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 10:18:41 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from aleph.swift.xxx (PPP-74-5.BU.EDU [128.197.7.121]) by acs-mail.bu.edu (8.8.5/BU_Server-1.3) with ESMTP id EAA92282 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 04:18:22 -0400 Received: from aleph (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aleph.swift.xxx (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA14222 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 04:18:38 -0400 X-Emacs: Emacs 20.2, MULE 3.0 (MOMIJINOGA) Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI MIME-Edit 0.86 "Naka-Tsurugi") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Message-ID: <199710070818.EAA14222@aleph.swift.xxx> Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 04:18:37 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Matthew Swift Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 07 Oct 1997 03:35:04 EDT." >>>>> "M" == Matthew Swift writes: M> OK, so you tag each and every \write with its part, to avoid M> using a grouping construct to enclose them. Hmm, actually it seems I tried this with the "tag" style option in tag.sto. I wonder if it works. Reading it over it seems like of all things accommodating BibTeX was a big pain in the neck. 7-Oct-1997 11:59:15-GMT,2651;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA28418 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 05:59:13 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA12746; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 13:22:56 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 209711 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 13:22:52 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA12732 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 13:22:47 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.152] (sl125.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.151]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id NAA02838; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 13:22:44 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 12:47:34 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: MathML To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L I suggest readers of this group to have a look at the MathML protocol : * The MathML group will contact the Unicode group for mathematical character improvements. This seems to relate to the attempts of pinning down mathematical characters in this group. * The MathML graphical features certainly relates to similar discussions in this group. (For example, I suggested they bring up the question of commutative diagrams, perhaps making 3D commutative diagrams.) * There is a LaTeX->MathML converter effort. * Some MathML features seems to relate to a topic discussed here, namely how to write mathematical formulas with more semantic information (eg. writing \connection, a name for the mathematical object, instead of \nabla, a name for the graphical rendering of a mathematical object). If those interested have a look at it, there may come up some other aspects. Hans Aberg * AMS member: Listing * Email: Hans Aberg 7-Oct-1997 12:33:01-GMT,2876;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA29029 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 06:32:59 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA14790; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 13:58:20 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 209738 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 13:58:17 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA14783 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 13:58:16 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.152] (sl06.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.26]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id NAA06458; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 13:58:15 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 13:52:16 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <199710061037.MAA00326@murnau.idris.fr> At 12:37 +0200 97/10/06, Bernard GAULLE wrote: >..So, may be, >the document hierarchy should not exactly be seen as suggested but >preferably like this: > >\documentclass{MyJournal} >\usepackage[WithToc,WithoutIndex,% some global options of interest > DeferedBiblio,EvenStartingPage]{mmarticle} > \begin{document} > > \begin{mmarticle} > \documentclass{article} % Start of article 1 class > \begin{document} > %% Article 1 stuff > \end{document} % End of article 1 class > \end{mmarticle} Well, the idea is that the different document hierarchy entities involved should be able to program whatever they want, plus being able to handshake the information they need to exchange. (I just did not go into the details.) So sure, a journal option should be able to tell if it is supposed to override the corresponding article option, or if it is supposed take effect only if the article does not override it. Hans Aberg * AMS member: Listing * Email: Hans Aberg * Home Page: 7-Oct-1997 13:22:46-GMT,3290;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA29966 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 07:22:44 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA18636; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 14:50:32 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 209613 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 11:51:15 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA01103 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 11:50:14 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.152] (sl126.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.152]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id LAA25092 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 11:50:12 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se References: (message from Hans Aberg on Tue, 7 Oct 1997 00:11:58 +0200) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 11:43:39 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: Re: Extended include To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: David Carlisle : >> Could you give some hints of why this stuff is needed? It can't be in >> order to merely keep the references right, because that could be solved by >> avoiding having multiple aux files. > >To get references right means that the page breaks need to be the >same even if some sections are not included. That means keeping track >of where the floats would have floated to had they been included. >Even if there are no floats, you need to know how far down the page >each section should start so the page breaks work out the same again. >\pageref is a harder beast to deal with than \ref, but \include >doesn't just aim to keep references correct, but to keep all the >typesetting of the included sections correct. So there is work to do >even if there are no floats and no cross references. You need to know >where on the page each section starts if you give up forcing that >it starts at the top of the page. I think this is related to the question of doing a better TeX: If this could be done efficiently, it could be used for creating a fast interactive display (as in an Acrobat browser). All that TeX rubber stuff Knuth was so fond of perverts it, I think. :-) Hans Aberg * AMS member: Listing * Email: Hans Aberg * Home Page: 7-Oct-1997 13:25:50-GMT,4762;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA00045 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 07:25:41 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA18596; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 14:50:06 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 209610 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 11:50:15 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA01099 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 11:50:12 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.152] (sl126.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.152]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id LAA25075 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 11:50:06 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se References: Your message of "Tue, 07 Oct 1997 00:42:52 +0200." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 11:39:12 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <199710070727.DAA13811@aleph.swift.xxx> Matthew Swift writes: >> Are there any reasons for LaTeX having multiple AUX >> files? > >They are only necessary in an \includeonly scenario. Some system >state (counters only at this point) from the UNincluded files is >stored in the aux files. Otherwise they would be overwritten. Could one not, instead of using \includeonly, have a feature that turns off the typeset output, which is supposed to be much faster (but I do not know if it really is). Then one could use a single aux file, and the files one does not want to print, one turns off the typeset output, instead of using \includeonly. Otherwise, I am not sure it is necessary having all references getting right when working with many files, and doing a subfile compilation. In the scenario I am playing around with one has a main file, indicated by a command \project{main}, which tells subfile compilations which files to look in to get such information of bibliography references, preamble and format info. The files that contain body text then will look like \project{main} % ... Text body and can be compiled without any altering. -- The \project command keeps track of it. The idea is that after a new file has been added to the project, main.tex is compiled first once in order to create the file main.aux, after which the subfile compilations can use the \project{main} command to look into this aux file. One can also have several "submain" files. For example, if only file2.tex and file5.tex should be compiled out of a larger set, one would prepare a file \project{main} \input file2.tex \input file5.tex So it is possible to work with several subfile constellations. (This idea cannot be done without altering the LaTeX format source file.) -- I should also note that if one uses only one aux file, then the file where the labels are should perhaps be written to the aux file, that is instead of writing \newlabel{eq-Qprop}{{1.2}{3}} one should write \newlabel{eq-Qprop}{{1.2}{3}{intro.tex}} if the label is in the file "intro.tex". -- Speaking about the contents of the aux files, I think one should be able to write style info to these labels: This shows up, for example, if you want to distinguish between equation numbering "(1.2)" and section numbering "1.2" (without parenthesizes): The labels should then be \newlabel{eq-Qprop}{{(1.2)}{3}} \newlabel{seq-intro-prop}{{1.2}{3}} so that \ref can directly produce the correct output. Perhaps the type of the label should be written instead, like \newlabel{eq-Qprop}{{equation}{1.2}{3}} \newlabel{seq-intro-prop}{{section}{1.2}{3}} \newlabel{thm-prop}{{theorem}{1.2}{3}} Hans Aberg * AMS member: Listing * Email: Hans Aberg * Home Page: 7-Oct-1997 13:37:15-GMT,2313;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA00334 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 07:37:11 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA19476; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 14:59:02 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 209824 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 14:59:00 +0200 Received: from pillar.elsevier.co.uk (root@pillar.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.222.35]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA19448 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 14:58:56 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from snowdon.elsevier.co.uk (snowdon.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.197.164]) by pillar.elsevier.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA19584 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 13:57:59 +0100 (BST) Received: from SRAHTZ (actually host srahtz.elsevier.co.uk) by snowdon.elsevier.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Tue, 7 Oct 1997 13:58:29 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <1291-Mon06Oct1997153121+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> X-Mailer: VM 6.33 under Emacs 19.34.6 Message-ID: <9724-Tue07Oct1997133112+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 13:31:12 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Sebastian Rahtz Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: David Carlisle writes: > > but try and stop them inserting horrors into what they do write > > Sadly more of an SGML concept than a (La)TeX one. > but i thought thats the direction/concept being favoured by LaTeX 3? sebastian 7-Oct-1997 13:41:50-GMT,2787;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA00385 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 07:41:42 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA10134; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 09:47:45 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 209479 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 09:47:43 +0200 Received: from acs-mail.bu.edu (root@ACS-MAIL.BU.EDU [128.197.153.100]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA09752 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 09:45:46 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from aleph.swift.xxx (PPP-74-5.BU.EDU [128.197.7.121]) by acs-mail.bu.edu (8.8.5/BU_Server-1.3) with ESMTP id DAA92394 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 03:45:22 -0400 Received: from aleph (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aleph.swift.xxx (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA13906 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 03:45:37 -0400 X-Emacs: Emacs 20.2, MULE 3.0 (MOMIJINOGA) Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI MIME-Edit 0.86 "Naka-Tsurugi") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Message-ID: <199710070745.DAA13906@aleph.swift.xxx> Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 03:45:36 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Matthew Swift Subject: newclude macros available To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L http://web.mit.edu/tkd/newclude.tgz contains my attempt at implementing a new \include system. The tar file unpacks into ./newclude. In ./newclude, type "make newclude.dvi" to get documentation on the code and discussion of the problems, various solutions I attempted, and their limitations and failures. Some macros aren't well documented, but most are, since I got this package pretty close to release quality. Sorry I don't have a good test file. In this case one is not too hard to make. You must cp *.sto *.sty to where LaTeX can find them. Note -- I'm still using LaTeX 1996/12/1 patchlevel 1, so perhaps something is broken with later versions. Newclude naturally redefines some basic \include and \write macros in the kernel. You can grow old doing sysadmin, and in my old age I let Thomas Esser handle the majority of my TeX installation for me. Matt Swift 7-Oct-1997 14:01:27-GMT,3188;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA00788 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 08:01:25 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA03322; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 12:03:33 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 209630 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 12:03:31 +0200 Received: from lumiere.idris.fr (root@lumiere.idris.fr [130.84.8.14]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA03292 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 12:03:28 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from murnau.idris.fr (murnau.idris.fr [130.84.8.20]) by lumiere.idris.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA01087 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 12:37:28 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from gaulle@localhost) by murnau.idris.fr (8.8.4/8.8.4) id MAA00326; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 12:37:25 +0200 Message-ID: <199710061037.MAA00326@murnau.idris.fr> Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 12:37:25 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Bernard GAULLE Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L >>>>> On Mon, 6 Oct 1997 09:59:18 +0100, >>>>> Sebastian Rahtz write about "Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros": SR> Hans Aberg writes: > So it appears that what is needed is a document hierarchy: > \documentclass{journal} % Start of journal class > \begin{document} > > \documentclass{article} % Start of article 1 class > \begin{document} > %% Article 1 stuff > \end{document} % End of article 1 class [...] SR> i agree that its an interesting subject... all users working as editor agree and wish (since... a long time) to be able to include articles in a report (or journal), reports in a book, ... without any modification. It looks like the Multi Master Fonts... we need a mechanism for our personnal cooking. So, may be, the document hierarchy should not exactly be seen as suggested but preferably like this: \documentclass{MyJournal} \usepackage[WithToc,WithoutIndex,% some global options of interest DeferedBiblio,EvenStartingPage]{mmarticle} \begin{document} \begin{mmarticle} \documentclass{article} % Start of article 1 class \begin{document} %% Article 1 stuff \end{document} % End of article 1 class \end{mmarticle} This scheme suggests that there is not a lot of stuff to include in the LaTeX kernel and that, probably, the most important part of the job could be done inside a [standard] package. --bg 7-Oct-1997 15:41:58-GMT,2738;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA03384 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 09:41:52 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA29595; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 17:06:17 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 209932 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 17:06:13 +0200 Received: from pillar.elsevier.co.uk (root@pillar.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.222.35]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA29575 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 17:06:00 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from snowdon.elsevier.co.uk (snowdon.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.197.164]) by pillar.elsevier.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA25356 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 16:04:58 +0100 (BST) Received: from SRAHTZ (actually host srahtz.elsevier.co.uk) by snowdon.elsevier.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Tue, 7 Oct 1997 16:04:50 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <199710070727.DAA13811@aleph.swift.xxx> X-Mailer: VM 6.33 under Emacs 19.34.6 Message-ID: <3530-Tue07Oct1997154946+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 15:49:46 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Sebastian Rahtz Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: > -- Speaking about the contents of the aux files, I think one should be able > to write style info to these labels: This shows up, for example, if you > want to distinguish between equation numbering "(1.2)" and section > numbering "1.2" (without parenthesizes): The labels should then be I have some sympathy with this, but after some bitter experiences with \newlabel in .aux files (in relation to hyperref), I would plead for a more radical redesign of the mechanism than just adding style. for instance, adding in the title of sections, as well as the number, never mind a unique identifier.... sebastian 7-Oct-1997 16:58:48-GMT,4638;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA05621 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 10:58:47 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA05864; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 18:35:18 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 209982 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 18:35:14 +0200 Received: from math.ams.org (math.ams.org [130.44.210.14]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA05855 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 18:35:11 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from axp14.ams.org by math.ams.org via smtpd (for relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) with SMTP; 7 Oct 1997 16:35:12 UT Received: from AXP14.AMS.ORG by AXP14.AMS.ORG (PMDF V5.1-8 #1) id <01IOIR58NHK0001W8Y@AXP14.AMS.ORG> for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 12:35:11 EST MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Mail-system-version: Message-ID: <876242111.105228.BNB@MATH.AMS.ORG> Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 12:35:11 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: bbeeton Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: since my name has been taken in vain ... from robin: an \include-like system that allows you to include stuff at arbitrary positions on the page, which is what TUGboat actually needs. from david: Why do you need an \include? or in particular why do you need an \includeonly ? Tugboat isn't so long is it? from my point of view, this isn't the biggest problem. david hit on that later: 1) making a `master class' that can pull a series of separate articles each from a separate file. Each of these `article files' should be a self contained document that may be processed independantly (although of necessity with a different class and perhaps a slightly different look to the output when processed independantly). [...] You can more or less get (1) by just having the master class redefine \documentclass to do nothing, re-enable \usepackage for use by the articles, and just set up whatever typographic details are needed to handle the `front matter' of the individual articles when considered as sections in the larger work. There are problems when you start to consider packages used by the different articles clashing, and issues relating to avoiding namespace clashes with \label etc, but they are not insurmountable (probably:-). that little matter of incompatible packages is a real beast. for latex 2.09, ron whitney cobbled together a workable technique, but it's much less obvious (at least to me) how this can be done for latex2e. if the only problems were the ability to disable \documentclass, \begin and \end{document}, reinstate the front matter macros, reinitialize counters, suppress the \clearpage, and that sort of housekeeping, i would have been able to bludgeon something together. but latex2e, although much easier to use in many other ways, is not at all forgiving when trying to supersede package a by package b. tugboat processing usually progresses by (re-)processing single articles until all the errors are gone and necessary changes have been made, then juggling multiple articles into a logical order with reasonable paging. (of course, all the floats change at this point, so there can still be substantial reiteration.) and there are still articles submitted in plain tex, which tugboat is not going to refuse if the material is relevant and well written. in fact, as some such articles propose non-latex solutions, it may be impossible to process them at all using latex. whenever possible, we try to group articles not only by subject, but also by processing method required. in pre-latex days, it was often possible to run the camera-ready copy of an issue as a unit. no more. -- bb 7-Oct-1997 17:32:23-GMT,2917;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA06691 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 11:32:21 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA08548; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 19:11:45 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 210002 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 19:11:43 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA08541 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 19:11:40 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.102] (sl76.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.102]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id TAA06837 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 19:11:38 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se References: <199710070727.DAA13811@aleph.swift.xxx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 18:57:17 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <3530-Tue07Oct1997154946+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> Sebastian Rahtz : >...after some bitter experiences with >\newlabel in .aux files (in relation to hyperref), I would plead for a >more radical redesign of the mechanism than just adding style. for >instance, adding in the title of sections, as well as the number, >never mind a unique identifier.... I recall there is a problem with long section titles, and their appearance in the table-of-contents: I think one should be able to write \section{This is the Section Title}% [This is the Table-of-Contents Title] But, anyway, the information added to the AUX file should probably be semantic (ref number, page-number, type of reference, filename, ev. section title, ev. toc title,...), leaving it to the typesetting style to choose the style components. Hans Aberg * AMS member: Listing * Email: Hans Aberg 7-Oct-1997 17:49:13-GMT,2552;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA07147 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 11:49:10 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA09726; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 19:30:41 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 210005 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 19:30:36 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA09711 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 19:30:31 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.102] (sl112.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.138]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id TAA08220 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 19:30:29 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 19:26:40 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <876242111.105228.BNB@MATH.AMS.ORG> bbeeton : >and there are still articles submitted in plain tex, which tugboat >is not going to refuse if the material is relevant and well written. >in fact, as some such articles propose non-latex solutions, it may >be impossible to process them at all using latex. whenever possible, >we try to group articles not only by subject, but also by processing >method required. in pre-latex days, it was often possible to run >the camera-ready copy of an issue as a unit. no more. I suggested LaTeX should have a PlainTeX class, so that could conveniently migrate from PlainTeX to LaTeX... Hans Aberg * AMS member: Listing * Email: Hans Aberg 7-Oct-1997 18:15:42-GMT,3612;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA07907 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 12:15:39 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA11118; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 19:53:56 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 210042 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 19:53:54 +0200 Received: from acs-mail.bu.edu (root@ACS-MAIL.BU.EDU [128.197.153.100]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA11100 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 19:53:40 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from aleph.swift.xxx (PPP-93-30.BU.EDU [128.197.9.118]) by acs-mail.bu.edu (8.8.5/BU_Server-1.3) with ESMTP id NAA125122 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 13:53:13 -0400 Received: from aleph (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aleph.swift.xxx (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA17629 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 13:53:29 -0400 X-Emacs: Emacs 20.2, MULE 3.0 (MOMIJINOGA) Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI MIME-Edit 0.86 "Naka-Tsurugi") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Message-ID: <199710071753.NAA17629@aleph.swift.xxx> Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 13:53:28 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Matthew Swift Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 07 Oct 1997 11:39:12 +0200." >>>>> "H" == Hans Aberg writes: H> Otherwise, I am not sure it is necessary having all H> references getting right when working with many files, and H> doing a subfile compilation. In the scenario I am playing I myself haven't put much thought in this direction since I was explicitly trying to write a backwards-compatible system. There are benefits to the original \include system, but they are not so great that others should not be considered. The \include system does not let you do anything you couldn't do with \input. It just makes it more convenient for long documents. These conveniences don't seem as wonderful in days of more powerful equipment (it took my high school math teacher several minutes to TeX one chapter). In fact there are also pitfalls in the old system that it would be nice to fill in. As I point out in the "review of the old system" section of the newclude documentation, it is a convenient feature, when leaving out, say, chapters 2 and 3 from your book that the references still work, and the footnote numbers and page numbers of chapter 4 do not change. This allows me to get output of chapters 1 and 4+ that looks exactly like those sections of the whole document, without using some sort of post-processor to whittle down the entire dvi file to the parts I want. But it is a quite unintuitive and inconvenient consequence of the implementation that that if you switch the order of chapters 2 and 3 while they are STILL UNINCLUDED, the counters in chapters 4+ are thrown into chaos. 7-Oct-1997 18:39:06-GMT,3634;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA08752 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 12:39:04 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA13022; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 20:18:59 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 210058 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 20:18:57 +0200 Received: from acs-mail.bu.edu (root@ACS-MAIL.BU.EDU [128.197.153.100]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA13014 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 20:18:54 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from aleph.swift.xxx (PPP-93-30.BU.EDU [128.197.9.118]) by acs-mail.bu.edu (8.8.5/BU_Server-1.3) with ESMTP id OAA131508 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 14:18:34 -0400 Received: from aleph (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aleph.swift.xxx (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA17732 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 14:18:49 -0400 X-Emacs: Emacs 20.2, MULE 3.0 (MOMIJINOGA) Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI MIME-Edit 0.86 "Naka-Tsurugi") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Message-ID: <199710071818.OAA17732@aleph.swift.xxx> Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 14:18:49 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Matthew Swift Subject: Re: Extended include To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 07 Oct 1997 00:49:25 BST." >>>>> "D" == David Carlisle writes: D> 2) To speed up D> processing of drafts as only the `current chapter' need be D> processed. D> (2) is not relevant if you are using a class where the D> individual sections are self contained documents. To just work D> on section1 you don't need to go \includeonly{section1} you can D> just go latex section1.tex Hunh? Like what kind of class is that? Do I misunderstand what you mean? You can't just go latex section1.tex if it doesn't have a \documentclass in it. If it does, either you weren't using \input or \include to include it in the first place, you were using something like \includex; or you are using a sophisticated LaTeX front-end like AUCTeX which supplies a header and footer for section1.tex from somewhere else. D> processed. 3) To cope with big jobs where running the whole D> document in one go runs out of memory. D> So that leaves (3). But (3) is usually a forlorn hope. Often I agree. The only time I have ever had TeX memory size problems is doing intensive fiddling with pstricks to cross-shade a large table. A typical 300+-page document (source2e for example) doesn't tax TeX at all, and we are about to enter the era of web2c-7 with dynamic memory allocation. When I tried the solution of one aux file and saving all the parts' auxinfo in memory with macros (tag.sto, group.sto). I did some experimentation and concluded that the extra memory usage was irrelevant. I don't say this would be so in all applications, of course, but the result was encouraging. 7-Oct-1997 18:46:19-GMT,4743;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA09847 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 12:46:17 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA13333; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 20:26:10 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 210066 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 20:26:07 +0200 Received: from kralle.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (kralle.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.8.158]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA13326 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 20:26:06 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from Ufrank@localhost) by kralle.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA05474 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 20:26:06 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kralle.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE: Ufrank set sender to latex3 using -f Received: (from latex3@localhost) by frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de (8.6.9/8.6.9) id UAA00483; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 20:22:32 +0100 References: <9083-Mon06Oct1997144554+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> <3997-Mon06Oct1997095918+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> <199710062136.WAA00429@frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de> Message-ID: <199710071922.UAA00483@frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de> Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 20:22:32 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Frank Mittelbach Subject: Re: Extended include To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: Hans Aberg writes: > >and this is basically it. > > Could you give some hints of why this stuff is needed? It can't be in > order to merely keep the references right, because that could be solved by > avoiding having multiple aux files. well, the number of aux files have nothing to do with solving references or nearly nothing. why do you need to keep track of the stuff i outlined: because the whole purpose of the include idea is to allow the following: to be able to process parts of the document and do get a correct and identical output for that part. e.g. if you format the whole document and print page 55 then the output is not changed if you later on process only the part that contains page 55 and then print page 55. this means that on this page 1) that everything is in the same place 2) the references to things in other places are the same 3) the floats appear identically 4) ... if you don't care about that then you can just use \input and process only those parts you are currently working on (which is what i usually do) and you can devise a simple mechanism that inputs only those files you want. but then on the other hand you can also use the current include since who cases about those extra page breaks in that case? for the final run you can still go \let\include\input and process everything without extra pages. now to achieve 1) you need to store information about the stuff that i described (ie float lists and positions on the pages at the beginning and end) since if you leave out say the first part you have to start the second part not on the top of a page but somewhere on the page (ie where the first part would have ended if typeset) and you need to know the status of your float lists after the end of the first part, since these lists contain the floats which haven't been typeset (from part one) and thus will get typeset while part two is processed (if the full document is typeset) to resolve crossreference you need to know what labels did appear in part one (as they might get referred to in other parts). this is what the aux files contain but it isn't really necessary to use separate files for each include. that is just a technical solution and an easy one. in fact for some prototype kernel (long time ago) i implemented a scheme that always used two aux files: one to read from and one to write to. the advantage was that a) less files and b) much better control in error situations, ie in case your run ended in the middle LaTeX would not use the file that was only partly written but the one that was fully written last time. frank 7-Oct-1997 18:58:48-GMT,2601;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA10260 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 12:58:45 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA13696; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 20:34:21 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 210069 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 20:34:17 +0200 Received: from acs-mail.bu.edu (root@ACS-MAIL.BU.EDU [128.197.153.100]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA13678 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 20:34:12 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from aleph.swift.xxx (PPP-93-30.BU.EDU [128.197.9.118]) by acs-mail.bu.edu (8.8.5/BU_Server-1.3) with ESMTP id OAA87800 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 14:33:32 -0400 Received: from aleph (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aleph.swift.xxx (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA17817 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 14:33:48 -0400 X-Emacs: Emacs 20.2, MULE 3.0 (MOMIJINOGA) Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI MIME-Edit 0.86 "Naka-Tsurugi") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Message-ID: <199710071833.OAA17817@aleph.swift.xxx> Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 14:33:47 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Matthew Swift Subject: Re: Extended include To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 07 Oct 1997 14:18:49 EDT." >>>>> "D" == David Carlisle writes: D> 2) To speed up processing of drafts as only the `current D> chapter' need be processed. It's perhaps fine in "drafts" to accept the presence of incorrect .aux file information, especially if this facilitates speed. But I would add reason 2A) for using \include: To produce a partial document that is identical to part of the whole document. I think there are a lot of applications where this is a common need. Of course you can always produce the entire thing and whittle it down, e.g. with "dvips -pp 20-33" but that is an extra-LaTeX solution. 7-Oct-1997 23:07:18-GMT,2339;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA17652 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 17:07:16 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id AAA25489; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 00:42:55 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 210138 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 00:42:35 +0200 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1d.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.138]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id AAA25467 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 00:42:28 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dcarlisle.demon.co.uk ([194.222.187.145]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1120196; 7 Oct 97 23:22 BST Received: by dcarlisle.demon.co.uk id m0xIhZy-000OWJC (Debian Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #2); Tue, 7 Oct 1997 22:54:10 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 22:54:10 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: David Carlisle Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: (message from Hans Aberg on Tue, 7 Oct 1997 19:26:40 +0200) > I suggested LaTeX should have a PlainTeX class, so that could > conveniently migrate from PlainTeX to LaTeX... I find latex &plain file.tex usually works quite well. You can also go \documentclass{article} \usepackage{plain} \begin{document} \begin{plain} \input{file} \end{plain} \end{document} which works most of the time as well. But probably not for the kind of article that appears in TUGBOAT. It is not too hard to write a TeX document that really excercises the obscure bits of whatever format it is aimed at, and so really will not run on any `emulation'. David 7-Oct-1997 23:53:17-GMT,3642;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA18652 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 17:53:10 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id BAA27062; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 01:23:49 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 210149 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 01:23:45 +0200 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1b.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.135]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id BAA27044 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 01:23:38 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dcarlisle.demon.co.uk ([194.222.187.145]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1001531; 7 Oct 97 23:22 BST Received: by dcarlisle.demon.co.uk id m0xIhR3-000OWIC (Debian Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #2); Tue, 7 Oct 1997 22:44:57 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 22:44:57 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: David Carlisle Subject: Re: Extended include To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <199710071818.OAA17732@aleph.swift.xxx> (message from Matthew Swift on Tue, 7 Oct 1997 14:18:49 -0400) > Hunh? Like what kind of class is that? The kind we were discussing before we wandered off topic and Frank changed the Subject to ``Extended include'' at which point it caught your eye:-) > You can't just go latex section1.tex if it doesn't have a > \documentclass in it. If it does, either you weren't using \input or > \include to include it in the first place, A proposed `journal' or `proceedings' class which redefines \documentclass and other preamble commands such that `self standing' articles *can* be input. > A typical 300+-page document (source2e for example) doesn't tax TeX at > all, and we are about to enter the era of web2c-7 with dynamic memory > allocation. Number of pages is more or less irrelevant to memory use. Source2e has almost no cross references (sadly:-) so is quite light on memory consumption. It is *slow* because all the verbatim bits are parsed `by hand' to index command usage, and large parts of the old ASCII latex209 comments are similarly parsed by hand so that commands automatically print themselves verbatim even though they are not marked up as LaTeX. > add reason 2A) for using \include: To produce a partial document > that is identical to part of the whole document. Yes that as well, but to be reliable for that use the pages generated have to be *exactly* correct and it is always difficult to be sure of that with an include system. So you \includeonly{chapter3} but the first page of chapter3 `should' start with a float from chapter2, (which is now allowed because we assume an improved system with no \clearpage) so at best the system leaves the correct amount of white space. That might be acceptable depending on what you were planning to do with these pages. If you *really* want `final form' not just a draft perhaps you really need that float to be in place in which case you need \includeonly{chapter2,chapter3} etc etc. David 8-Oct-1997 1:48:13-GMT,2513;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA20906 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 19:48:11 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id CAA29715; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 02:41:46 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 210163 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 02:41:44 +0200 Received: from sarah.albany.edu (sarah.albany.edu [169.226.1.103]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA29707 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 02:41:41 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from fenris.math.albany.edu (fenris.math.albany.edu [169.226.23.39]) by sarah.albany.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA28546 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 20:39:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mark@localhost) by fenris.math.albany.edu (8.8.4/8.8.3) id UAA01177 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 20:39:48 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text Message-ID: <199710080039.UAA01177@fenris.math.albany.edu> Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 20:39:48 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Mark Steinberger Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: from "David Carlisle" at Oct 8, 97 00:39:12 am David writes: > More normal (if any of us TeX users are normal) usage are the kinds of > things outlined by Robin (for his collection of letters) or Bernard > (for a journal made up of similar (from the TeX point of view) articles). It sure would be nice if someone would distribute a good amstex to latex converter. Many journals these days work from author-created tex files, and a substantial portion of the authoring community uses amstex. I'm told the AMS has such a converter for in-house use, but I don't know of one available to the public. --Mark 8-Oct-1997 2:01:19-GMT,3637;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA21111 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 20:01:17 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id CAA00049; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 02:53:08 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 210166 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 02:53:06 +0200 Received: from REG.TRIUMF.CA (reg.Triumf.CA [142.90.100.2]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id CAA00039 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 02:53:03 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by triumf.ca (MX V4.0-1 VAX) id 247; Tue, 07 Oct 1997 17:49:36 PST Message-ID: <009BB6D1.D6B5A400.247@triumf.ca> Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 17:49:35 PST Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Donald Arseneau Subject: Re: Extended include To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L David Carlisle wrote: % % > add reason 2A) for using \include: To produce a partial document % > that is identical to part of the whole document. % % Yes that as well, but to be reliable for that use the pages generated % have to be *exactly* correct and it is always difficult to be sure of % that with an include system. This is the primary use of \include. Yes, the most *common* (correct) use is for quicker latex runs at the draft stage, but in that case the cross-references are unlikely to be correct and nobody really cares. The primary function of the \include mechanism is to make minor changes to a completed final copy. For this use, the \clearpage is practically essential! Without it, and with unincluded parts sharing pages with included parts, just about any change at all would require reprocessing the entire document, as adding just one line will change all the ensuing page breaks. When \clearpage separates sections, it is rare (but possible) for a small change to affect pagination after the included section. % So you \includeonly{chapter3} but the % first page of chapter3 `should' start with a float from chapter2, % (which is now allowed because we assume an improved system with no % \clearpage) I am always amazed by the difference between dialects of English. In North America, "improve" means "make better", not "ruin"! Floats should not be allowed to wander very far for reasons of good typesetting, not just for technical convenience. So an extended include should begin (and end) with a \FloatBarrier or equivalent (placeins.sty). Still, I don't see any case where a non-page-breaking include would be beneficial; when sections run one into the other, you must process the entire document to get the locations right after any change. I will have to look at Matt's work. I believe a non-breaking \include is possible (but not useful imho). It requires: abolish \immediate writes (no problem) Either: write to only the main aux file (goodbye chapterbib) with tags to gobble sections of it when interested in just a part. Or: abolish \immediate \openout. Easy! \FloatBarrier checkpoint \pagetotal etc. Donald Arseneau asnd@triumf.ca 8-Oct-1997 2:19:58-GMT,2857;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA21469 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 20:19:56 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id CAA29083; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 02:21:42 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 210160 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 02:21:39 +0200 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1b.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.135]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id CAA29076 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 02:21:37 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dcarlisle.demon.co.uk ([194.222.187.145]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1021520; 8 Oct 97 0:31 BST Received: by dcarlisle.demon.co.uk id m0xIjDc-000OWHC (Debian Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #2); Wed, 8 Oct 1997 00:39:12 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 00:39:12 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: David Carlisle Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <876242111.105228.BNB@MATH.AMS.ORG> (message from bbeeton on Tue, 7 Oct 1997 12:35:11 -0400) > since my name has been taken in vain ... 'twasn't me what did it, honest. > in pre-latex days, it was often possible to run > the camera-ready copy of an issue as a unit. no more. No doubt true if you say so, but is LaTeX the cause or is it more that in those days you were not trying to typeset an article in cyrillic followed by an article about 16bit Omega fonts followed by .. > that little matter of incompatible packages is a real beast. Yes for you especially in TUGBOAT I suspect that you are always going to be hitting some real hard incompatibility, but as I said to Sebastian earlier in this thread ``you don't count'':-) More normal (if any of us TeX users are normal) usage are the kinds of things outlined by Robin (for his collection of letters) or Bernard (for a journal made up of similar (from the TeX point of view) articles). In these cases you can usually (perhaps:-) arrange just to load all packages used by any of the sub documents at the start of the `master' document and then just input each sub document in turn (after suitably disabling all the preamble commands). David 8-Oct-1997 8:54:35-GMT,3184;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA29148 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 02:54:33 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA21060; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 10:26:29 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 210410 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 10:26:26 +0200 Received: from heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk (exim@heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.32.11]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA21053 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 10:26:24 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dorceus.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.1.34] (rf) by heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.70 #3) id 0xIrRo-0005CT-00; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 09:26:24 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 09:26:22 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Robin Fairbairns Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 07 Oct 1997 19:26:40 +0200." Hans Aberg writes (quoting Barbara Beeton): > >and there are still articles submitted in plain tex, which tugboat > >is not going to refuse if the material is relevant and well written. > >in fact, as some such articles propose non-latex solutions, it may > >be impossible to process them at all using latex. This is (a) in the nature of things and (b) as it should be (IMHO, anyway: I wouldn't enjoy reading a TUB paper that said "here are some macros to do in plain something that LaTeX people take for granted"). Barbara went on to deplore the fact that she/we can't any longer (in our brave new LaTeX world) run a whole issue in one pass through TeX. In fact, since I've joined the production team, there have been articles that required us to build an extended TeX, or to hack at standard macros, to get them to run on their own. Hans remarked: > I suggested LaTeX should have a PlainTeX class, so that could > conveniently migrate from PlainTeX to LaTeX... There's a perfectly good plain.sty, which David Carlisle updates whenever something new proves to be necessary. A class really isn't the right thing, since classes are there to implement document designs, and the very essence of plain is that it *doesn't* impose a document design. In the TUGboat instance, in fact, implementation of a version of its `plain' macro set for use within a LaTeX framework is another ambition I'd rather given up on. If there were enough hours in the day, I might give it another pass, but unfortunately... Robin 8-Oct-1997 10:54:26-GMT,3629;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA01151 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 04:54:19 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA00379; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 12:16:57 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 210428 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 12:16:51 +0200 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1d.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.138]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA00357 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 12:16:38 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dcarlisle.demon.co.uk ([194.222.187.145]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1125700; 8 Oct 97 10:17 BST Received: by dcarlisle.demon.co.uk id m0xIrvr-000OWIC (Debian Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #2); Wed, 8 Oct 1997 09:57:27 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 09:57:27 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: David Carlisle Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <199710080039.UAA01177@fenris.math.albany.edu> (message from Mark Steinberger on Tue, 7 Oct 1997 20:39:48 -0400) > Many journals these days work from author-created tex files, and a > substantial portion of the authoring community uses amstex. I don't know of any converter myself, but do you have any idea why they still use amstex. In particular if you (or someone else) put the work in to make a converter and then openly advertised submission requirements as `Submit articles in latex or amstex, in the latter case we will convert your document to latex in house before processing it.' Then at least some of those authors may think it worth the trouble to code it up in latex to start with. If they all did that then the effort to write the translater is wasted (or at least did not work in the way intended:-). Also in what way do you want to treat the latex. Do you really want some `external' translator to produce a file marked up with LaTeX (+amsmath package) markup, so you can use it as input to some `LaTeX-like' engines such as latex2html or ScientificWord, or do you `just' want something that will allow documents (or sections of documents) marked up in amstex to be processed directly by LaTeX. To give a couple of example I know more about, on ctan you will find a couple of the latter type of `converters', namely plain.sty and typehtml.sty which allow `plain TeX' and `HTML' markup to be directly processed by LaTeX. so you can go \documentclass{article} \usepackage{plain,typehtml} \begin{document} \begin{plain} \beginsection This is a section Marked up in {\it plain \TeX}. \end{plain} \dohtml

Another section

Marked up in HTML.

\end{document} and LaTeX will do something more or less sensible with it, but I hate to think what latex2html would make of the above. So what kind of converter are you looking for? David 8-Oct-1997 13:10:39-GMT,4055;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA03541 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 07:10:38 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA12239; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 14:39:31 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 210475 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 14:39:27 +0200 Received: from math.ams.org (math.ams.org [130.44.210.14]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA12216 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 14:39:20 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from axp14.ams.org by math.ams.org via smtpd (for relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) with SMTP; 8 Oct 1997 12:39:10 UT Received: from AXP14.AMS.ORG by AXP14.AMS.ORG (PMDF V5.1-8 #1) id <01IOK2OT2KCW002450@AXP14.AMS.ORG> for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 08:39:09 EST MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Mail-system-version: Message-ID: <876314349.457293.BNB@MATH.AMS.ORG> Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 08:39:09 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: bbeeton Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: i said, re tugboat, in pre-latex days, it was often possible to run the camera-ready copy of an issue as a unit. no more. and david responded No doubt true if you say so, but is LaTeX the cause or is it more that in those days you were not trying to typeset an article in cyrillic followed by an article about 16bit Omega fonts followed by .. it's some of each. if article 1 had to redefine the output routine to enable side-insertion of figures, there was a good chance that article 2 would have to be started up separately. but cyrillic (at least using the amsfonts and associated font-handling) would not pose a problem, nor would, usually, any article that took care not to redefine "core" or primitive control sequences or reset penalties. actually, reset penalties can be even more insidious than redefined control sequences -- the latter often kindly crash and make their presence known, while the former simply cause different line and page breaks without any "obvious" reason. me: that little matter of incompatible packages is a real beast. david: Yes for you especially in TUGBOAT I suspect that you are always going to be hitting some real hard incompatibility, but as I said to Sebastian earlier in this thread ``you don't count'':-) it's nice (?) to be a member of that exclusive minority ... but i agree that, since one of the purposes of tugboat is to show off what tex is capable of, the boundaries are going to be stretched quite regularly. at least (most of) the reasons for problems are more tolerable now than in the days when a single page had to be set in four pieces and patched together with tape because of limited memory. regarding the use of multiple (possibly incompatible) packages, In these cases you can usually (perhaps:-) arrange just to load all packages used by any of the sub documents at the start of the `master' document and then just input each sub document in turn (after suitably disabling all the preamble commands). i would surely welcome your input toward resolving this dilemma, and i think that robin probably would too. -- bb 8-Oct-1997 13:47:56-GMT,3061;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA04266 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 07:47:53 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA14348; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 15:05:31 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 210499 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 15:05:27 +0200 Received: from sarah.albany.edu (sarah.albany.edu [169.226.1.103]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA14318 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 15:05:10 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from fenris.math.albany.edu (fenris.math.albany.edu [169.226.23.39]) by sarah.albany.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA14417 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 09:03:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mark@localhost) by fenris.math.albany.edu (8.8.4/8.8.3) id JAA01564 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 09:03:18 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text Message-ID: <199710081303.JAA01564@fenris.math.albany.edu> Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 09:03:18 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Mark Steinberger Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: from "David Carlisle" at Oct 8, 97 09:57:27 am David writes: > I don't know of any converter myself, but do you have any idea why > they still use amstex. In some cases, it may be due to the reputation of the AMS. Some mathematicians may see this as the "real" in-house markup system, and therefore a classy way to typset math. Others dislike using big packages, and see amstex as closer to plain tex than latex. In any case, it took some of my colleagues a long time to realize the value of latex, and others haven't gotten there yet. > Also in what way do you want to treat the latex. I'd like to get something that will convert to real latex syntax, so I can then use latex classes with custom features (e.g., customized hyperlinking features). The alternative seems to be to directly duplicate the latex classes in amstex, which is quite a bit nastier to work with on the class level. The most formidable difficulty for any system of processing amstex papers would seem to be dealing with the bibliographic syntax/system. (Perhaps amstex --> bibtex would be the best route for this, if a conversion existed for the rest of the markup.) --Mark 8-Oct-1997 15:00:13-GMT,5283;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA05979 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 09:00:09 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA22519; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:32:10 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 210600 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:32:01 +0200 Received: from math.ams.org (math.ams.org [130.44.210.14]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA22451 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:31:50 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from axp14.ams.org by math.ams.org via smtpd (for relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) with SMTP; 8 Oct 1997 14:31:01 UT Received: from epsilon.ams.org by AXP14.AMS.ORG (PMDF V5.1-8 #1) with SMTP id <01IOK7EWHT1C001U2G@AXP14.AMS.ORG> for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 10:30:59 EST Received: by epsilon.ams.org; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/12Oct95-1155AM) id AA27796; Wed, 08 Oct 1997 10:30:59 -0400 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Lines: 72 References: Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 10:30:58 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Michael John Downes Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: David Carlisle's message of Wed, 08 Oct 1997 09:57:27 +0100 > > Many journals these days work from author-created tex files, and a > > substantial portion of the authoring community uses amstex. > > I don't know of any converter myself, but do you have any idea why > they still use amstex. In the community of mathematician/authors? Inertia. AMS-TeX was heavily promoted by the AMS in the mid-80s to facilitate electronic submission of math-intensive documents to the AMS publishing program. Once an author gets a working TeX system going it's easier for them to stick with it than to go through the upheaval of switching to a different system. Thus I'd guess the people who started using AMS-TeX have typically stayed with it for five years or more. And many of those in the author population don't pay as much attention to recent developments in the TeX world as we do. I dare say there are even a few authors out there who discovered AMS-TeX only two or three years ago and are right now converting their acquaintances to the use of AMS-TeX from the yet more primitive typesetting systems (troff? T3? Word Perfect?) they were using before. Circa 1990 with the release of AMS-LaTeX 1.0, LaTeX got enough mathematical functionality to rival AMS-TeX and mathematicians (physicists, statisticians, ...) began to be lured from AMS-TeX by the other features LaTeX provides---automatic numbering, for example. But I would estimate that the penetration of LaTeX among the people who submit articles and books to the AMS has grown something like this: 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 5% 10% 15% 20% 30% 40% 55%? 60%? which leaves still quite a few AMS-TeX users out there. > In particular if you (or someone else) put the > work in to make a converter and then openly advertised submission > requirements as > > `Submit articles in latex or amstex, in the latter case we will convert > your document to latex in house before processing it.' > > Then at least some of those authors may think it worth the trouble to > code it up in latex to start with. The AMS has begun promoting LaTeX more strongly than AMS-TeX in the last year or so because the five primary AMS journals are published on the WWW in HTML form now and LaTeX documents convert more easily than AMS-TeX. > `LaTeX-like' engines such as latex2html or ScientificWord, or do you > `just' want something that will allow documents (or sections of > documents) marked up in amstex to be processed directly by LaTeX. We've already done this to a certain extent in order to process the table of contents for journals that contain a mixture of LaTeX and AMS-TeX documents. (The titles often contain math ...) The amstex-to-latex converter used by the AMS inhouse is written in Omnimark and doesn't attempt to work miracles. Author-defined macros that take delimited arguments typically have to be cleaned up by hand. And the issues of automatic numbering and cross-referencing are rather intractable. The converter does what it can with the relatively easy parts and leaves the rest. For example, if a document has 10 theorems the converter does \newtheorem*{theorem1}{Theorem 1} \newtheorem*{theorem2}{Theorem 2} \newtheorem*{theorem3}{Theorem 3} ... rather than try to deal with all the potential pitfalls of unusual numbering schemes. Michael Downes mjd@ams.org 8-Oct-1997 15:09:31-GMT,2697;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA06261 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 09:09:29 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA23760; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:45:54 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 210616 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:45:53 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA23740 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:45:48 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.74] (sl54.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.74]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id QAA03685 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:45:41 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se References: from "David Carlisle" at Oct 8, 97 00:39:12 am Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 14:50:56 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <199710080039.UAA01177@fenris.math.albany.edu> At 20:39 -0400 97/10/07, Mark Steinberger wrote: >Many journals these days work from author-created tex files, and a >substantial portion of the authoring community uses amstex. I think the reason for this, is that the early versions of AMS-LaTeX had problems. But are there any reasons for still using AMS-TeX? >It sure would be nice if someone would distribute a good amstex to latex >converter. .. >I'm told the AMS has such a converter for in-house use, but I don't >know of one available to the public. This seems to be a good idea: It is not difficult to do the conversions by hand (that is, if each author does it), but a converter would surely help promoting AMS-LaTeX. Hans Aberg * AMS member: Listing * Email: Hans Aberg 8-Oct-1997 15:09:34-GMT,2843;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA06265 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 09:09:32 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA23785; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:46:03 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 210622 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:46:02 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA23724 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:45:40 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.74] (sl54.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.74]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id QAA03680 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:45:39 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se References: <9083-Mon06Oct1997144554+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> <3997-Mon06Oct1997095918+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> <199710062136.WAA00429@frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 14:42:51 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: Re: Extended include To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <199710071922.UAA00483@frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de> Frank Mittelbach : >In fact for some prototype kernel (long time ago) I implemented a >scheme that always used two aux files: one to read from and one to >write to. The advantage was that a) less files and b) much better >control in error situations, ie in case your run ended in the middle >latex would not use the file that was only partly written but the one >that was fully written last time. This is a problem with the Textures flush (or was it flash?) mode: So I think this idea should be taken up again. Hans Aberg * AMS member: Listing * Email: Hans Aberg * Home Page: 8-Oct-1997 15:11:47-GMT,5711;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA06311 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 09:11:45 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA23705; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:45:34 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 210610 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:45:30 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA23693 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:45:28 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.74] (sl54.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.74]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id QAA03596; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:45:23 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se References: <199710071451.QAA04848@macbeth.uni-duesseldorf.de> <199710071320.PAA16991@mozart.ujf-grenoble.fr> <199710071451.QAA04848@macbeth.uni-duesseldorf.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de id QAA23694 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 14:02:08 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: Re: MathML To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <199710080947.LAA00612@mozart.ujf-grenoble.fr> At 11:47 +0200 97/10/08, Thierry Bouche wrote: >Concernant « Re: MathML », Ulrik Vieth schreibt : >> Careless coding tends to be mostly >> visual, but there's at least a potential to make it more semantic >> by using high-level macros to encode symbols by their function >> and having them translated to low-level macros in the background. .. >yes yes yes ! This the other aspect, making LaTeX prepare input that is more semantic, and which I think may have a relation to MathML, such efforts: Eventually, in the future, one should be able to have all mathematic semantic information in the input formulas, but I do not think TeX or LaTeX suitable for a preparation for this task. -- Computer technology has not developed sufficiently yet to support it. ...>tex (as a program) is not always coherent with tex (as a >coding scheme) though... {,} making the comma mathord (there should be >at least 2 commas in maths, one mathpunct, one mathord); in >\Sum_{i=1}^n, {i=1} is _not_ an index nor n an exponant, >mathematically speaking. My feeling is that the Knuthian macros play >like a virtuose with tex's font oddities and abilities, at the expense >of the genericity of the markup (too much clerveness, too many special >cases are not good for genericity...). I would define a formula as "semantics expressed in symbols": So it is possible to extract the semantics information from a formula, as opposed to an illustration. In the attempts achieving the goal of having formulas as input, the exact syntax makes little difference, because one can later develop automated tools translating to another syntax. So, in the example, $\Sum_{i=1}^n$, one should be able to somehow extract that $i$ an index ranging from $1$ to $n$; additional rendering information should be added independently of this semantic information. There are two ways we could do this: First, we could ignore the TeX syntax, saying that we have an automated tool that knows how to extract the semantic information from expressions of the type $\Sum_{i=a}^b$. The problem with this approach is that authors would find ways to write formulas that break this scheme, for example $\Sum^b_{i=a}$. We could try to cover up that possibility, but then the authors will invent something else, and so on. The second approach is to make use of the TeX syntax, forcing the authors entering the semantic information. For example, we could define $\def\Sum#1#2#3#4{...}$, with the usage #1 = i, #2 = a, #3 = b, #4 = summand. The problem with this approach is that TeX's syntax is too limited, so authors would probably feel to be in straight-jacket: We do not have name overloading, and cannot parse (easily) even simple types of grammars. But one could play with ideas of how to implement with ideas of improved formula input: In the example above, suppose we decide that an author always should input sums as $\def\Sum#1#2#3#4{...}$ (ignoring for a moment the fact that this is mathematically too restrictive). Then the typesetter would end up with a formula \begin{equation} % gory stuff \Sum{gory i}{gory a}{gory b}{gory summand} % more gory stuff \end{equation} The typesetter needs to somehow add rendering information that does not disturb the semantic information. Then, the syntax should perhaps be \begin{equation} \rendering{...} % gory stuff \Sum{gory i}{gory a}{gory b}{gory summand} % more gory stuff \end{equation} putting in the rendering info separately. Well, I did not say it is going to be easy. :-) Hans Aberg * AMS member: Listing * Email: Hans Aberg 8-Oct-1997 15:15:49-GMT,4055;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA06386 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 09:15:41 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA23743; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:45:49 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 210613 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:45:47 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA23698 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:45:32 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.74] (sl54.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.74]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id QAA03634 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:45:30 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se References: Your message of "Tue, 07 Oct 1997 11:39:12 +0200." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 14:14:09 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <199710071753.NAA17629@aleph.swift.xxx> Matthew Swift : >There are benefits to the original \include system, but they are not >so great that others should not be considered. The \include system >does not let you do anything you couldn't do with \input. It just >makes it more convenient for long documents. These conveniences don't >seem as wonderful in days of more powerful equipment... This is one aspect that I have in my mind: Computers are getting so fast that making a full compile every once in a while does not hurt. >In fact there are also pitfalls in the old system that it would be >nice to fill in. As I point out in the "review of the old system" >section of the newclude documentation, it is a convenient feature, >when leaving out, say, chapters 2 and 3 from your book that the >references still work, and the footnote numbers and page numbers of >chapter 4 do not change. This allows me to get output of chapters 1 >and 4+ that looks exactly like those sections of the whole document, >without using some sort of post-processor to whittle down the entire >dvi file to the parts I want. I am not sure about the details, but I think one can that with my system: If one has a main file "main.tex", indicated by \project{main} in other files, then a subfile (named "submain.tex") compilation would use two aux files: main.aux and submain.aux. Global (cross file) references would refer to main.aux, and local (file submain.tex) references would refer to submain.aux. So you get the references to work in a way suitable for authoring; if you do a radical change, adding a file, or something, you can always throw in a global compile of main.tex. >But it is a quite unintuitive and inconvenient consequence of the >implementation that that if you switch the order of chapters 2 and 3 >while they are STILL UNINCLUDED, the counters in chapters 4+ are >thrown into chaos. So, I would not bother about this too much, since I would put in a global compile in such a case. Hans Aberg * AMS member: Listing * Email: Hans Aberg * Home Page: 8-Oct-1997 15:15:59-GMT,2801;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA06395 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 09:15:57 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA23778; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:45:59 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 210619 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:45:57 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA23714 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:45:37 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.74] (sl54.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.74]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id QAA03669 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:45:36 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se References: Your message of "Tue, 07 Oct 1997 14:18:49 EDT." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 14:37:39 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: Re: Extended include To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <199710071833.OAA17817@aleph.swift.xxx> >It's perhaps fine in "drafts" to accept the presence of incorrect .aux >file information, especially if this facilitates speed. But I would >add reason 2A) for using \include: To produce a partial document >that is identical to part of the whole document. I think there are a >lot of applications where this is a common need. For example, if you just want to print one article of a journal issue. But it seems me that this idea with turning off the typeset output (mentioned in Knuth's TeX-book) would be a simple solution, that is, relatively easy to implement with reliable output results. Perhaps the two ideas can be combined: Instead of having a command \include causing the pagebreak, one has a command \partition, that allows one to skip forward in the typesetting process; then only use \input. (So \partion\input would be equivalent to \include.) Hans Aberg * AMS member: Listing * Email: Hans Aberg 8-Oct-1997 15:16:53-GMT,2344;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA06429 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 09:16:52 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA23791; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:46:07 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 210625 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:46:06 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA23732 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:45:45 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.74] (sl54.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.74]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id QAA03688 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:45:44 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 15:02:16 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: Re: Extended include To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <009BB6D1.D6B5A400.247@triumf.ca> At 17:49 -0800 97/10/07, Donald Arseneau wrote: >% So you \includeonly{chapter3} but the >% first page of chapter3 `should' start with a float from chapter2, >% (which is now allowed because we assume an improved system with no >% \clearpage) > >I am always amazed by the difference between dialects of English. >In North America, "improve" means "make better", not "ruin"! That must be Canada, then. :-) Hans Aberg * AMS member: Listing * Email: Hans Aberg * Home Page: 8-Oct-1997 15:24:30-GMT,2466;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA06641 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 09:24:26 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA24710; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:59:14 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 210632 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:59:08 +0200 Received: from heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk (exim@heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.32.11]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA24693 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:59:00 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dorceus.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.1.34] (rf) by heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.70 #3) id 0xIxZk-00046p-00; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 15:59:00 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 15:58:59 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Robin Fairbairns Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 08 Oct 1997 14:14:09 +0200." > Matthew Swift : > >There are benefits to the original \include system, but they are not > >so great that others should not be considered. The \include system > >does not let you do anything you couldn't do with \input. It just > >makes it more convenient for long documents. These conveniences don't > >seem as wonderful in days of more powerful equipment... > > This is one aspect that I have in my mind: Computers are getting so fast > that making a full compile every once in a while does not hurt. Every once in a while, maybe. Every time, definitely not. Computers get faster, and so do discs. But discs get faster slower than computers (as it were). I can assure you that I don't want to run my 600 files through latex because I've changed one 2-pager... Robin 8-Oct-1997 15:31:38-GMT,2157;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA06802 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 09:31:37 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA25008; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 17:01:26 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 210635 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 17:01:23 +0200 Received: from heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk (exim@heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.32.11]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA24970 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 17:01:16 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dorceus.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.1.34] (rf) by heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.70 #3) id 0xIxbv-00041Q-00; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:01:15 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:01:14 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Robin Fairbairns Subject: Re: Extended include To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 08 Oct 1997 14:37:39 +0200." > For example, if you just want to print one article of a journal issue. > But it seems me that this idea with turning off the typeset output > (mentioned in Knuth's TeX-book) would be a simple solution, that is, > relatively easy to implement with reliable output results. You can't "not produce output" and even approach replicating the effects of \include and \includeonly The settings of labels and so on are part of the output process, so all relevant labels will get lost by such a process. Robin 8-Oct-1997 15:39:07-GMT,3035;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA07038 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 09:39:06 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA25699; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 17:04:43 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 210641 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 17:04:39 +0200 Received: from pillar.elsevier.co.uk (root@pillar.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.222.35]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA25688 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 17:04:37 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from snowdon.elsevier.co.uk (snowdon.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.197.164]) by pillar.elsevier.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA04654 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:03:40 +0100 (BST) Received: from SRAHTZ (actually host srahtz.elsevier.co.uk) by snowdon.elsevier.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:03:49 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <199710071753.NAA17629@aleph.swift.xxx> X-Mailer: VM 6.33 under Emacs 19.34.6 Message-ID: <5167-Wed08Oct1997160142+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:01:42 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Sebastian Rahtz Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: > >makes it more convenient for long documents. These conveniences don't > >seem as wonderful in days of more powerful equipment... > > This is one aspect that I have in my mind: Computers are getting so fast > that making a full compile every once in a while does not hurt. I don't know about you people, but my most recent experience was running The LaTeX Graphics Companion (quite a complex book) a million times, while preparing new pages for a reprint. i have quite a fast computer, but it still takes 3 or 4 or 5 minutes to run the whole book, as opposed to 10-20 seconds for an easy chapter. so i want to keep \include, thanks! in addition, having a single place in the master file with the \includeonly is much less error-prone for the editing than commenting and uncommenting a slew of \input lines. not that this invalidates the discussion, but just a vote from a \include lover... Sebastian 8-Oct-1997 16:42:03-GMT,2492;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA08977 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 10:42:01 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA03018; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 18:25:07 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 210726 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 18:25:00 +0200 Received: from multivac (multivac.jb.man.ac.uk [130.88.24.128]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA02991 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 18:24:55 +0200 (MET DST) X-VMS-To: SMTP%"LATEX-L@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de" X-VMS-Cc: HELBIG Message-ID: <97100817254516@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 17:25:45 GMT Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Phillip Helbig Subject: Re: God given limit (Was: LaTeX journal and publisher macros) To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L > At 10:47 97/10/02, Phillip Helbig wrote: > One way to get around this is to switch to an emailer that can handle > MIME; it will break lines longer than 76 characters, and pick them together > again, transparently to the user. As long as the sender has not relied on visual formatting:) > And old FORTRAN programmers could switch > to something more modern... :-) Well, I actually write Fortran95 now, which allows longer lines, but normally don't use them, since 70 or so (see Lamport's comments on this subject!!!) is about the maximum to allow easy reading. -- Phillip Helbig Email ... helbig@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories Tel. ..... +44 1477 571 321 (ext. 297) Jodrell Bank Fax ................. +44 1477 571 618 Macclesfield Telex ................. 36149 JODREL G UK-Cheshire SK11 9DL Web .... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pjh/ My opinions are not necessarily those of NRAL or the University of Manchester. 8-Oct-1997 16:45:24-GMT,2214;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA09062 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 10:45:22 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA03194; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 18:29:02 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 210735 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 18:29:00 +0200 Received: from multivac (multivac.jb.man.ac.uk [130.88.24.128]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA03187 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 18:28:58 +0200 (MET DST) X-VMS-To: SMTP%"LATEX-L@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de" X-VMS-Cc: HELBIG Message-ID: <97100817300050@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 17:30:00 GMT Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Phillip Helbig Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L > Phillip Helbig writes: > > As far as Bill Gates goes, I'm completely microsoft (and intel) free. > > I'm even completely unix-free, doing EVERYTHING on VMS (never worse and > and you talk about the stone age! Well, it is VMS 7.1, which is at least as modern as any other OS. > but getting off topic Right. -- Phillip Helbig Email ... helbig@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories Tel. ..... +44 1477 571 321 (ext. 297) Jodrell Bank Fax ................. +44 1477 571 618 Macclesfield Telex ................. 36149 JODREL G UK-Cheshire SK11 9DL Web .... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pjh/ My opinions are not necessarily those of NRAL or the University of Manchester. 8-Oct-1997 16:56:14-GMT,3045;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA09354 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 10:56:12 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA03943; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 18:38:57 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 210743 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 18:38:55 +0200 Received: from multivac (multivac.jb.man.ac.uk [130.88.24.128]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA03934 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 18:38:53 +0200 (MET DST) X-VMS-To: SMTP%"LATEX-L@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de" X-VMS-Cc: HELBIG Message-ID: <97100817340325@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 17:34:03 GMT Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Phillip Helbig Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L > I think it's very imporand that relates to this topic: people look at > Lamport's book and say > `but that doesn't do anything like my complex journal style'. when > they look further, they are confronted with 1Gb of rubbish on CTAN, > some of which conceals what they really want - maybe. Anyone who is not a TeXpert who tries to solve a problem starting with the knowledge that `the solution is somewhere in CTAN' is in for a lot of work. For instance, try installing TeX and MF from scratch from CTAN. The TeX on my system came from the VMS freeware CD, which was very easy to install and has everything I need. If progress is to be made on the journal article style, then it must be painless to upgrade a site from 2.09 to 2e. Perhaps something to the VMS freeware CD solution could be (has been) done for other operating systems as well? I realise that there is redundancy if one has a complete package for each OS, but surely disk space has increased since CTAN began more than enough to compensate? > i think we'd all benefit from a new articleplusplus.cls Well, as a Fortran man, let's call it article97 or something similar:) -- Phillip Helbig Email ... helbig@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories Tel. ..... +44 1477 571 321 (ext. 297) Jodrell Bank Fax ................. +44 1477 571 618 Macclesfield Telex ................. 36149 JODREL G UK-Cheshire SK11 9DL Web .... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pjh/ My opinions are not necessarily those of NRAL or the University of Manchester. 8-Oct-1997 17:32:12-GMT,5274;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA10237 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 11:32:07 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA06020; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 19:11:02 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 210766 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 19:10:59 +0200 Received: from multivac (multivac.jb.man.ac.uk [130.88.24.128]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA06011 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 19:10:55 +0200 (MET DST) X-VMS-To: SMTP%"LATEX-L@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de" X-VMS-Cc: HELBIG Message-ID: <97100818083713@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 18:08:37 GMT Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Phillip Helbig Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L > What is the main purpose of a standard markup convention for journal > articles? > > * To allow a single generic `preprint class' to be used for authors > for multiple journals, with the `production class' for a particular > journal being used just in the final stages, perhaps in house after > the author submission? > > * To allow transfer of articles from one journal class to another? > > * To give a more or less loose set of conventions so that authors are > not `surprised' by the submission requirements of any particular > journal, even if certain differences in markup are required for each > journal? I would say all three. > I'll give a couple off examples of the kind of issue that I have in > mind when asking the above questions. > > Some journals give full postal addresses for each author. > Some just give an `affiliation' for each author and highlight one > `corresponding author' for whom full address is given. > For the second type one might expect > or some other markup scheme. The question is, does it make sense to > try to have one preprint class that covers both schemes. If such a > class is to guarantee that documents can be run without error on > either production class, then it seems that authors will be asked to > provide lots of `redundant' information such as full address and > affiliation for each author, even though a typical class will only use > one or the other. > This may seem like a rather trivial distinction, but several such > small differences soon combine to mean that either your `generic > front matter code' becomes quite complicated, or you end up with > several class files which are similar in construction but strictly > incompatible. I think that this can partially be solved by the use of OPTIONAL arguments; if the author doesn't want to provide them when writing for a journal which doesn't use them, he is free to do so. Journals which don't use them must then accept the optional arguments in their commands but then do nothing with them. > For production use it is essential that any preprint style that > authors used is more or less guaranteed to produce manuscripts that > run with the production class (that may use commercial fonts or differ > in other ways from a public author submission class, but should take > as far as possible exactly the same manuscript markup). A very important goal. > Another problem is author order. Some Journals (see for example the > Kluwer class files) order all authors from the same institution > together. Perhaps more common is a single list of authors with > somekind of footnote marker system to identify the affiliation of each > author. The AMS have a kind of hybrid system where the frontmatter > author list is a single list, but at the end a list of full address > is cross referenced back to the authors. Does it make sense to try > to capture all these systems with a standard markup scheme. Especially > as author order in some disciplines involves political implications of > `seniority' (In others, authors are always listed alphabetically > irrespective of seniority). I think that this could be done. Fancy bibliographic styles can alter reference alphabetically or by order of appearance in the text. Something similar could be done here. One could have the rank as an optional argument. I think there are many solutions. -- Phillip Helbig Email ... helbig@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories Tel. ..... +44 1477 571 321 (ext. 297) Jodrell Bank Fax ................. +44 1477 571 618 Macclesfield Telex ................. 36149 JODREL G UK-Cheshire SK11 9DL Web .... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pjh/ My opinions are not necessarily those of NRAL or the University of Manchester. 8-Oct-1997 17:35:48-GMT,2703;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA10409 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 11:35:40 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA06243; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 19:16:06 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 210771 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 19:16:04 +0200 Received: from multivac (multivac.jb.man.ac.uk [130.88.24.128]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA06230 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 19:16:02 +0200 (MET DST) X-VMS-To: SMTP%"LATEX-L@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de" X-VMS-Cc: HELBIG Message-ID: <97100818154177@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 18:15:41 GMT Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Phillip Helbig Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L > Here is a futuristic scenario: Think of a version HyTeX of TeX (as the > name HyperTeX is already occupied) with the capacity of \input-ing URL's; > then the ideal electronic journal only needs to contain information about > journal style, and which articles to \input, the latter which of course > already are posted in an official e-print archive. The distribution of each > journal issue can thus become very compact. :-) I believe that some journals already accept a URL when submitting an article; this points to an e-print archive. Electronic publication and standardisation of macros need to be developed in parallel. With LaTeX relatively well standardised compared to the WWW world (well, what standards there are are often ignored by major players and users), one must be careful here. -- Phillip Helbig Email ... helbig@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories Tel. ..... +44 1477 571 321 (ext. 297) Jodrell Bank Fax ................. +44 1477 571 618 Macclesfield Telex ................. 36149 JODREL G UK-Cheshire SK11 9DL Web .... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pjh/ My opinions are not necessarily those of NRAL or the University of Manchester. 8-Oct-1997 17:39:44-GMT,2243;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA10554 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 11:39:42 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA06320; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 19:17:07 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 210777 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 19:17:05 +0200 Received: from multivac (multivac.jb.man.ac.uk [130.88.24.128]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA06308 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 19:17:03 +0200 (MET DST) X-VMS-To: SMTP%"LATEX-L@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de" X-VMS-Cc: HELBIG Message-ID: <97100818191418@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 18:19:14 GMT Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Phillip Helbig Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L > > All the files in the latex distribution are checked for the 72 > > character limit as part of the Makefile that makes up the > > distribution. > > Last year I changed it to check for 80 characters per line. I'm not > going to support mail gateways that cut at 72. If 80 gets through, you can't quote it without rewrapping it yourself. -- Phillip Helbig Email ... helbig@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories Tel. ..... +44 1477 571 321 (ext. 297) Jodrell Bank Fax ................. +44 1477 571 618 Macclesfield Telex ................. 36149 JODREL G UK-Cheshire SK11 9DL Web .... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pjh/ My opinions are not necessarily those of NRAL or the University of Manchester. 8-Oct-1997 18:18:25-GMT,3603;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA11651 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 12:18:23 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA09288; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 20:03:33 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 210803 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 20:03:29 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA09252 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 20:03:26 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.74] (sl27.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.47]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id UAA22380 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 20:03:25 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se References: <199710071753.NAA17629@aleph.swift.xxx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 19:15:10 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <5167-Wed08Oct1997160142+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> Sebastian Rahtz >... So I want to >keep \include, thanks! In addition, having a single place in the >master file with the \includeonly is much less error-prone for the >editing than commenting and uncommenting a slew of \input lines. My idea is not that one should have to uncomment \input lines, but much simpler, if a project \input's files file1.tex,...,fileN.tex, and just want to compile fileK.tex, because that is what you are editing, then you first compile the main project file once, to get the main aux file computed, and then you typeset the file fileK.tex directly: The \project{main} command in this file will tell it where to look for project aux information. If you want several files to be \input'ed, then you write a special file for that combination. So it is simpler than having to fiddle around with a \includeonly command: You can have sequence of working constellations to work with, without altering any file! I am not sure this idea contradicts the use of a \include command in a similar way (built up around a single main aux file, and one for the subcompilation). The only difference between \input and \include seems to be that the latter have a special version of the \clearpage command that allows for exact computation of references and page numbers in a subfile compile. Perhaps one could build that onto \clearpage, so that \include becomes equivalent to \clearpage\input (with the aux file structure described above). Hans Aberg * AMS member: Listing * Email: Hans Aberg 8-Oct-1997 18:58:19-GMT,2789;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA12648 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 12:58:17 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA11378; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 20:40:40 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 210830 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 20:40:37 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA11365 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 20:40:35 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.74] (sl49.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.69]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id UAA24637 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 20:40:34 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 20:38:40 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: LaTeX & email (Was: LaTeX journal and publisher macros) To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <97100818191418@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Phillip Helbig: >> > All the files in the latex distribution are checked for the 72 >> > character limit as part of the Makefile that makes up the >> > distribution. >> >> Last year I changed it to check for 80 characters per line. I'm not >> going to support mail gateways that cut at 72. > >If 80 gets through, you can't quote it without rewrapping it yourself. Sure, no problem: My text editor can handle lines of more than 5000 characters, which can be displayed without wrapping using a scroll-bar. So I write such a line, puts it in the mail, making sure the automated hard-wrapping feature is turned off, the letter being MIME'd. When it arrives, the line is picked together to 5000 character length, and the recipient displays that as is deemed suitable, say with a scroll-bar, without wrapping. So LaTeX needs not worry about email line length limitations, really. Hans Aberg * AMS member: Listing * Email: Hans Aberg 8-Oct-1997 20:22:27-GMT,4028;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA14906 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 14:22:25 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA14913; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 21:52:32 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 210855 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 21:52:28 +0200 Received: from multivac (multivac.jb.man.ac.uk [130.88.24.128]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA14896 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 21:52:22 +0200 (MET DST) X-VMS-To: SMTP%"LATEX-L@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de" X-VMS-Cc: HELBIG Message-ID: <97100820493693@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 20:49:36 GMT Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Phillip Helbig Subject: Re: LaTeX & email (Was: LaTeX journal and publisher macros) To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L > Phillip Helbig: > >> > All the files in the latex distribution are checked for the 72 > >> > character limit as part of the Makefile that makes up the > >> > distribution. > >> > >> Last year I changed it to check for 80 characters per line. I'm not > >> going to support mail gateways that cut at 72. > > > >If 80 gets through, you can't quote it without rewrapping it yourself. > > Sure, no problem: My text editor can handle lines of more than 5000 > characters, which can be displayed without wrapping using a scroll-bar. So > I write such a line, puts it in the mail, making sure the automated > hard-wrapping feature is turned off, the letter being MIME'd. When it > arrives, the line is picked together to 5000 character length, and the > recipient displays that as is deemed suitable, say with a scroll-bar, > without wrapping. > > So LaTeX needs not worry about email line length limitations, really. ^^^^^ Is there some confusion here? I'm referring not to LaTeX source, but rather to email messages to this list. If someone writes *****$#--1----_----2----_----3----_----4----_----5----_----6----_----7-- and I quote it, it becomes > *****$#--1----_----2----_----3----_----4----_----5----_----6----_----7-- and if that gets quoted it becomes > > *****$#--1----_----2----_----3----_----4----_----5----_----6----_----7-- and again > > > *****$#--1----_----2----_----3----_----4----_----5----_----6----_----7-- another one > > > > *****$#--1----_----2----_----3----_----4----_----5----_----6----_----7-- and it is 80 characters. If it gets quoted again > > > > > *****$#--1----_----2----_----3----_----4----_----5----_----6----_----7-- then it is too long---not just for (some) email software or terminals, but to read easily (I don't want a horizontal scroll bar). If I wrap it, then I get > > > > >*****$#--1----_----2----_----3----_----4----_----5----_----6--- -_----7-- which is not what I want, since the second line should be preceded by the quote symbol as well. If someone uses "== " or some other longer quote symbol than "> " then the situation is worse. -- Phillip Helbig Email ... helbig@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories Tel. ..... +44 1477 571 321 (ext. 297) Jodrell Bank Fax ................. +44 1477 571 618 Macclesfield Telex ................. 36149 JODREL G UK-Cheshire SK11 9DL Web .... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pjh/ My opinions are not necessarily those of NRAL or the University of Manchester. 8-Oct-1997 20:39:24-GMT,2729;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA15408 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 14:39:22 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA15968; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 22:13:56 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 210867 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 22:13:54 +0200 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1c.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.136]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA15959 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 22:13:51 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dcarlisle.demon.co.uk ([194.222.187.145]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id ab0923593; 8 Oct 97 20:41 BST Received: by dcarlisle.demon.co.uk id m0xIzF8-000OWLC (Debian Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #2); Wed, 8 Oct 1997 17:45:50 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 17:45:50 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: David Carlisle Subject: converting to/from latex/amstex To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <199710081303.JAA01564@fenris.math.albany.edu> (message from Mark Steinberger on Wed, 8 Oct 1997 09:03:18 -0400) > I'd like to get something that will convert to real latex syntax, so > I can then use latex classes with custom features (e.g., customized > hyperlinking features). If you are dealing with the final document via TeX (as opposed to a latex to something converter) then it may still be easier to do the amstex to latex stage via macro (re)definition. For instance in that typehtml example I mentioned last time,

Another section

really does go through a call to \section, so will pick up any definition that the class file gives, and if you load the hyperref package then it will put in a suitably `active' link from the table of contents. (Which makes an entertaining way of going from html to pdf, preserving hypertext structure:-) You mentioned the amstex bib stuff. I wish you hadn't:-) As you say that should probably go to bibtex in which case you perhaps would need an external converter after all. David Changed the subject to keep Frank happy. 8-Oct-1997 21:44:48-GMT,2233;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA17121 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 15:44:46 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA19414; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 23:23:32 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 210923 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 23:23:29 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA19406 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 23:23:26 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.34] (sl84.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.110]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id XAA04658 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 23:23:22 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 23:24:27 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: Re: LaTeX & email (Was: LaTeX journal and publisher macros) To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <97100820493693@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> > Phillip Helbig: >Is there some confusion here? I'm referring not to LaTeX source, but >rather to email messages to this list. If someone writes... Yes, you are confused; MIME picks together the lines again. But your email setup may be such that you have not noticed it yet. So it is not an issue with LaTeX. :-) Hans Aberg * AMS member: Listing * Email: Hans Aberg 9-Oct-1997 9:38:37-GMT,2153;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA01995 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 03:38:32 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA24623; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:14:51 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 211160 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:14:47 +0200 Received: from perdita.zdv.Uni-Mainz.de (perdita.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.8.147]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA24599 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:14:45 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from schoepf@localhost) by perdita.zdv.Uni-Mainz.de (8.8.4/8.8.5) id LAA05666; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:14:30 +0200 (MEST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit References: <97100820493693@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> X-Mailer: VM 6.31 under Emacs 19.34.1 Message-ID: <199710090914.LAA05666@perdita.zdv.Uni-Mainz.de> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:14:30 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Rainer Schoepf Organization: Johannes Gutenberg-Universitaet Mainz Subject: Re: LaTeX & email (Was: LaTeX journal and publisher macros) To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <97100820493693@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Phillip Helbig writes: > > So LaTeX needs not worry about email line length limitations, really. > ^^^^^ > Is there some confusion here? I'm referring not to LaTeX source, but > rather to email messages to this list. Maybe. The topic before was the line length in the files of the LaTeX distribution. Rainer Schöpf 9-Oct-1997 9:44:07-GMT,2500;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA02095 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 03:44:03 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA25400; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:25:14 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 211168 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:25:11 +0200 Received: from multivac (multivac.jb.man.ac.uk [130.88.24.128]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA25393 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:25:08 +0200 (MET DST) X-VMS-To: SMTP%"LATEX-L@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de" X-VMS-Cc: HELBIG Message-ID: <97100910263154@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 10:26:31 GMT Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Phillip Helbig Subject: Re: LaTeX & email (Was: LaTeX journal and publisher macros) To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L > Phillip Helbig writes: > > > > So LaTeX needs not worry about email line length limitations, really. > > ^^^^^ > > Is there some confusion here? I'm referring not to LaTeX source, but > > rather to email messages to this list. > > Maybe. The topic before was the line length in the files of the LaTeX > distribution. I mentioned wrapping to 72 characters in the previous thread, which I started and which is indicated by the change in title. Line length in the files of the LaTeX distribution (which also shouldn't be too long) wasn't MY original topic at all. -- Phillip Helbig Email ... helbig@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories Tel. ..... +44 1477 571 321 (ext. 297) Jodrell Bank Fax ................. +44 1477 571 618 Macclesfield Telex ................. 36149 JODREL G UK-Cheshire SK11 9DL Web .... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pjh/ My opinions are not necessarily those of NRAL or the University of Manchester. 9-Oct-1997 9:56:47-GMT,4672;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA02296 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 03:56:43 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA25884; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:32:15 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 211178 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:32:14 +0200 Received: from multivac (multivac.jb.man.ac.uk [130.88.24.128]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA25869 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:31:58 +0200 (MET DST) X-VMS-To: SMTP%"LATEX-L@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de" X-VMS-Cc: HELBIG Message-ID: <97100910281439@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 10:28:14 GMT Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Phillip Helbig Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Here's a FIRST SUGGESTION for a proposed journal.cls. Each journal would have its own .cls with a different name but REQUIRING THE SAME COMMANDS AND ARGUMENTS. Contrary to what I mentioned before, there should be NO optional arguments (except to the \documentclass command itself), so that the author is forced to include everything. Each .cls is free to ignore any arguments, but should complain if an argument is not present (an empty {} is enough if it is not really needed; it should not be empty (and the .cls should complain) if it is really needed). The idea is to include all information necessary for the markup, but leave the appearance in the hands of the individual .cls. The \maketitle command would format the information in a way appropriate to the journal. Unwanted commands (which might be used by those attempting visual formatting) could be temporarily defined to give error messages. I intentionally wrote this before looking at any other suggestions, so as to be completely uninfluenced and (perhaps) offer a fresh perspective. ======================================================= %THERE SHOULD BE SOME STANDARD OPTIONS \documentclass[referee]{journal} %DO WE NEED MORE ARGUMENTS? \title{Title}{short form} \note{any notes immediately after title will be marked as notes to the title} \note{there may be more than one} %ALL BUT THE FIRST ARGUMENT ARE REFERENCES TO LABELS %DO WE NEED MORE? \author{short form}{affiliation-ref}{address-ref}{email-ref} \note{any notes immediately after this author will be marked as notes to this author} \note{there may be more than one note for each author} %THIS IS THE SECOND AUTHOR \author{short form}{affiliation-ref}{address-ref}{email-ref} \note{any notes immediately after this author will be marked as notes to this author} \note{there may be more than one note for each author} %DO WE NEED MORE ARGUMENTS? \date{received in original form}{received}{accepted} %THE TWO ARGUMENTS FOR EACH \item IN THE ENVIRONMENTS BELOW WORK SIMILAR %TO THE KEY AND THE OPTIONAL ARGUMENT OF \bibitem. WHAT IS DONE WITH %THIS INFORMATION (INCLUDING THE ORDER AND POSITIONING OF AFFILIATIONS, $EMAIL ADDRESSES ETC) IS UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL .cls \begin{affiliations} \item{affiliation-label}{name of affiliation} \item{affiliation2-label}{name of affiliation2} %... \end{affiliations} \begin{addresses} \item{address-label}{address} \item{address2-label}{address2} %... \end{addresses} \begin{emails} \item{email-label}{email} \item{email2-label}{email2} %... \end{addresses} \begin{document} \maketitle %AS OF HERE, STANDARD LaTeX WITH PERHAPS PERSONAL MACROS ARE USED. NO %EXTRA COMMANDS, JUST CHANGES IN THE WAY THE USUAL ONES WORK (MARGINS, %APPEARANCE OF LISTS AND SO ON). %ONE EXCEPTION WOULD BE THE (REQUIRED) USE OF MACROS FOR THINGS WHICH %ARE TYPESET/PUNCTUATED/SPELLED DIFFERENTLY, SUCH AS \etc, \etal, %\colour, AND SO ON. %WE DO NEED A REPLACEMENT FOR \caption WHICH LEAVES WHETHER OR NOT IT %APPEARS BEFORE OR AFTER THE FLOAT UP TO THE .cls AND NOT UP TO WHERE %IT IS PLACED WITHIN THE ENVIRONMENT. %UNTIL THE OTHER STUFF IS SORTED OUT, I'M ASSUMING THAT DALY'S natbib %AND SO ON CAN HANDLE REFERENCES, CITATIONS ETC. OK ======================================================= 9-Oct-1997 10:09:39-GMT,2323;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA02508 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 04:09:35 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA26887; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:48:26 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 211187 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:48:23 +0200 Received: from pillar.elsevier.co.uk (root@pillar.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.222.35]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA26872 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:48:21 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from snowdon.elsevier.co.uk (snowdon.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.197.164]) by pillar.elsevier.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA02131 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 10:47:27 +0100 (BST) Received: from SRAHTZ (actually host srahtz.elsevier.co.uk) by snowdon.elsevier.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Thu, 9 Oct 1997 10:47:37 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <97100910281439@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> X-Mailer: VM 6.33 under Emacs 19.34.6 Message-ID: <975-Thu09Oct1997104631+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 10:46:31 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Sebastian Rahtz Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <97100910281439@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> > \author{short form}{affiliation-ref}{address-ref}{email-ref} where is the long form of author? is `short-form' what appears in the running head? > \maketitle i miss the keywords and abstract, which form part of the frontmatter `package'. i think your \maketitle should be processing those too sebastian 9-Oct-1997 10:25:48-GMT,3225;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA02742 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 04:25:46 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA27279; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:55:46 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 211192 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:55:45 +0200 Received: from multivac (multivac.jb.man.ac.uk [130.88.24.128]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA27272 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:55:43 +0200 (MET DST) X-VMS-To: SMTP%"LATEX-L@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de" X-VMS-Cc: HELBIG Message-ID: <97100910521469@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 10:52:14 GMT Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Phillip Helbig Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L > > \author{short form}{affiliation-ref}{address-ref}{email-ref} > where is the long form of author? Right, a typo---long form should be the first argument: \author{long form}{short form}{affiliation-ref}{address-ref}{email-ref} > is `short-form' what appears in the running head? Yes. Should one break the author's name up into initials and surnames, so that the order could be different in the main title and the running head and/or different than the order in which the author would have put them (were the argument not split up)? > > \maketitle > > i miss the keywords Of course, an obvious oversight. I knew I wouldn't think of everything right off, and that omissions would be noticed, so my last post was written rather quickly, in order to get some discussion going again, and to allow me NOT to be influenced by other suggestions (not that there is necessarily anything wrong with them, but rather just to give a fresh perspective). > and abstract, which form part of the frontmatter > `package'. i think your \maketitle should be processing those too I hadn't been thinking of the abstract as part of the front matter (probably because it normally comes after \maketitle) but perhaps I should be. Other comments? What about the `affiliations' and other environments with the label-reference mechanism? -- Phillip Helbig Email ... helbig@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories Tel. ..... +44 1477 571 321 (ext. 297) Jodrell Bank Fax ................. +44 1477 571 618 Macclesfield Telex ................. 36149 JODREL G UK-Cheshire SK11 9DL Web .... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pjh/ My opinions are not necessarily those of NRAL or the University of Manchester. 9-Oct-1997 10:55:20-GMT,3442;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA03162 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 04:55:13 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA29887; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:33:57 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 211222 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:33:54 +0200 Received: from pillar.elsevier.co.uk (root@pillar.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.222.35]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA29876 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:33:50 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from snowdon.elsevier.co.uk (snowdon.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.197.164]) by pillar.elsevier.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA03865 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:32:50 +0100 (BST) Received: from SRAHTZ (actually host srahtz.elsevier.co.uk) by snowdon.elsevier.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:33:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <97100910521469@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> X-Mailer: VM 6.33 under Emacs 19.34.6 Message-ID: <9620-Thu09Oct1997111600+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:16:00 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Sebastian Rahtz Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <97100910521469@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> > Should one break the author's name up into initials and surnames, so > that the order could be different in the main title and the running head > and/or different than the order in which the author would have put them you mean the running head might say "Einstein, A"? all i can say is that i have not been ever asked to do it... > I hadn't been thinking of the abstract as part of the front matter > (probably because it normally comes after \maketitle) but perhaps I > should be. if you consider a two column layout, with front matter set over both columns, it becomes important to know where front matter starts and stops. one of our journals puts the abstract as a footnote :-} > Other comments? What about the `affiliations' and other environments with > the label-reference mechanism? i didn't personally like the layout very much, but leave that aside for now. the important thing is whether people think the necessary information is all in place. re dates, i note that we support received, revised, accepted, and communicated. you only have 3 fields. by the way, i think that using multiple parameters in this, and other, macros is not very friendly. why not adopt the keyval syntax, ie \date{communicated=xxxx,revised=xxxx} which allows a more elegant way to omit arguments, and identify what you are doing. i know its just sugar, but it would make bits of what you suggest easier to read sebastian 9-Oct-1997 11:31:02-GMT,3949;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA03683 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 05:30:58 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA02187; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 13:05:36 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 211241 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 13:05:34 +0200 Received: from multivac (multivac.jb.man.ac.uk [130.88.24.128]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA02176 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 13:05:30 +0200 (MET DST) X-VMS-To: SMTP%"LATEX-L@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de" X-VMS-Cc: HELBIG Message-ID: <97100911582847@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:58:28 GMT Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Phillip Helbig Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L > > Should one break the author's name up into initials and surnames, so > > that the order could be different in the main title and the running head > > and/or different than the order in which the author would have put them > you mean the running head might say "Einstein, A"? all i can say is > that i have not been ever asked to do it... What about just the last names (no initials) in the running head? Or should there be ONE command for the running head? This might prove to inflexible, since some will want all author names, some et al. and so on. > if you consider a two column layout, with front matter set over both > columns, it becomes important to know where front matter starts and > stops. Good point. > one of our journals puts the abstract as a footnote :-} There really is no accounting for taste. > the important thing is whether people think the necessary > information is all in place. I'll wait until the comments have subsided and post a revised version:) > re dates, i note that we support received, revised, accepted, and > communicated. you only have 3 fields. Add as many as the maximum number required by anyone. What exactly is `communicated' (as opposed to `received in original form')? > by the way, i think that using multiple parameters in this, and other, > macros is not very friendly. why not adopt the keyval syntax, ie > > \date{communicated=xxxx,revised=xxxx} > > which allows a more elegant way to omit arguments, and identify what > you are doing. i know its just sugar, but it would make bits of what > you suggest easier to read Two problems here (perhaps some graphics/graphicx comments are appropriate here:). The keyword syntax is different from the normal LaTeX style; by FORCING the author to include everything, compatibility is assured. If optional arguments (either in [] or via omitted keywords) are used then each individual .cls should complain if keywords are missing. One must also avoid individual packages adding their own keywords etc without coordination with others. -- Phillip Helbig Email ... helbig@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories Tel. ..... +44 1477 571 321 (ext. 297) Jodrell Bank Fax ................. +44 1477 571 618 Macclesfield Telex ................. 36149 JODREL G UK-Cheshire SK11 9DL Web .... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pjh/ My opinions are not necessarily those of NRAL or the University of Manchester. 9-Oct-1997 11:49:26-GMT,1993;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA04013 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 05:49:23 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA02623; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 13:13:03 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 211244 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 13:13:01 +0200 Received: from ecu.econ.vu.nl (ecu.econ.vu.nl [130.37.52.3]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA02605 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 13:12:58 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by ecu.econ.vu.nl; Thu, 9 Oct 97 13:15:04 -0100 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 13:13:16 -6000 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Maarten Gelderman Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L >%DO WE NEED MORE ARGUMENTS? >\date{received in original form}{received}{accepted} How do you accomodate for the following `Accepted by ...; received ..... This paper has been with the authors ... months for ... revision(s). Regards, Maarten ========================================================================== Maarten Gelderman email: mgelderman@econ.vu.nl Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam phone: +31 20 444 6073 De Boelelaan 1105 room 3a-36 fax +31 20 444 6005 NL-1081 HV AMSTERDAM The Netherlands 9-Oct-1997 12:04:55-GMT,3213;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA04237 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 06:04:53 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA04038; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 13:34:16 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 211251 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 13:34:12 +0200 Received: from pillar.elsevier.co.uk (root@pillar.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.222.35]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA04023 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 13:34:05 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from snowdon.elsevier.co.uk (snowdon.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.197.164]) by pillar.elsevier.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA06268 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:32:54 +0100 (BST) Received: from SRAHTZ (actually host srahtz.elsevier.co.uk) by snowdon.elsevier.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:33:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <97100911582847@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> X-Mailer: VM 6.33 under Emacs 19.34.6 Message-ID: <1072-Thu09Oct1997121716+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:17:16 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Sebastian Rahtz Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <97100911582847@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> > What about just the last names (no initials) in the running head? in that case i would put just surname as shortform, surely? what else is shortform for? TOCs? > Or should there be ONE command for the running head? This might prove > to inflexible, since some will want all author names, some et al. and so yes, journal style should determine whether to derive et al > Add as many as the maximum number required by anyone. What exactly is > `communicated' (as opposed to `received in original form')? god knows! > appropriate here:). The keyword syntax is different from the normal > LaTeX style; by FORCING the author to include everything, compatibility > is assured. If optional arguments (either in [] or via omitted you you allow for {}, so whats the difference? it means we just have the pain of remembering to say \author{}{Foo Bar} > keywords) are used then each individual .cls should complain if keywords > are missing. which, indeed, is a feature; it provides a good interface for journal classes to work with > One must also avoid individual packages adding their own > keywords etc without coordination with others. again, one might regard that as a feature... s 9-Oct-1997 12:40:00-GMT,3773;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA04868 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 06:39:58 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA07039; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 14:15:28 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 211287 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 14:15:25 +0200 Received: from ecu.econ.vu.nl (ecu.econ.vu.nl [130.37.52.3]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA07031 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 14:15:23 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by ecu.econ.vu.nl; Thu, 9 Oct 97 14:17:33 -0100 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 14:00:07 -6000 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Maarten Gelderman Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L >> >%DO WE NEED MORE ARGUMENTS? >> >\date{received in original form}{received}{accepted} >> How do you accomodate for the following >> `Accepted by ...; >A name goes here? Yes >> received ..... This paper has been with the authors ... >> months for ... revision(s). >Is this format really used anywhere? > Accepted by Joe Smith; received 26 > June 1996. This paper has been with the authors 7 months for > 3 revisions. Yes, at least Management Science and Information Systems Research use it. The latter journal also mentions the function of the person accepting the paper (Editor, Associate Editor etc.) I guess this implies that all journal published by Informs use a similar format. A similar problem that might occur can be found in some issues of The Accounting Review. This journal normally does not indicate the name of the accepting editor, except for situations in which the editor is someone else than the editor in charge (usually the previous editor). All journals of the American Accounting Association have an additional required footnote: a statement on data availability. Similarly the keywords part of an abstract, category and subject descriptors, and classifications may deserve a separate entry. Another problem might be introduced by acknowledgments. In some journals they are a footnote to the name of the author, or to the title. Some journals treat them as a footnote without a footnotemark and other treat them as a separate section. Informs (again, but they accept LaTeX submissions and are highly regarded in the business and operations research community) treats acknowledgments as a footnote to the last sentence of the article that appears between this last sentence and the references. To avoid visual markup, I am afraid \acknowledgments{} should be introduced as well. (By the way, if this approach really starts to function, I guess it might convince a lot of people to switch to LaTeX. Adapting manuscripts can be a really awkful experience (I learn ;-)). Regards, Maarten ========================================================================== Maarten Gelderman email: mgelderman@econ.vu.nl Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam phone: +31 20 444 6073 De Boelelaan 1105 room 3a-36 fax +31 20 444 6005 NL-1081 HV AMSTERDAM The Netherlands 9-Oct-1997 13:02:31-GMT,4536;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA05260 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 07:02:30 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA08831; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 14:37:14 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 211309 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 14:37:12 +0200 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1b.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.135]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA08820 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 14:37:09 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dcarlisle.demon.co.uk ([194.222.187.145]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1100354; 9 Oct 97 13:28 BST Received: by dcarlisle.demon.co.uk id m0xJH2C-000OWTC (Debian Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #2); Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:45:40 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:45:40 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: David Carlisle Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <97100910281439@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> (message from Phillip Helbig on Thu, 9 Oct 1997 10:28:14 GMT) Philip writes (as usual I'm only commenting on the bits I don't like, no one gets any praise around here:-) > \note You will need several categories of note. Either by allowing multiple commands to be declared (as I did in fmatter) or by some extra argument (which is syntactic dressing for the same thing). > %THE TWO ARGUMENTS FOR EACH \item IN THE ENVIRONMENTS BELOW WORK SIMILAR > %TO THE KEY AND THE OPTIONAL ARGUMENT OF \bibitem. in which case the command shouldn't be called \item (which does not have any mandatory arguments). The argument structure of latex commands should not depend on context (which is why for instance \\ accepts a * form in tabular, even though it doesn't do anything with it). \author{long form}{short form}{affiliation-ref}{address-ref}{email-ref} I don't think that long lists of mandatory arguments with (typically) short ref strings is very usable in practice, people will get them out of order, or miss one out. Also it is very inflexible if the following year you really decide you need one other piece of informtion then you can not add a new argument to \author or you break all the existing documents. So it is better I think to have more commands, or optional arguments rather than mandatory (possibly, or possibly not) with a key=value syntax > Should one break the author's name up into initials and surnames, so Changing order gets complicated, but some classes may want to put surname only in running head, or to put surnames in small caps. so some kind of surname markup is probably useful. Speaking of running heads, you are probably going to need a command to explicitly set the running head in certain circumstances. Auto-generating it from the author list is useful and portable when it works, but you will always find that paper by 10 authors and a robot where auto generation, even with automatic adding of `et al' doesn't do the right thing. > I hadn't been thinking of the abstract as part of the front matter > (probably because it normally comes after \maketitle) but perhaps I > should be. It needs to be part of the frontmatter as often it is set as part of the title block rather than as part of the main running text. The standard classes don't do it that way, but many existing classes do including the AMS classes and many existing journal classes. Sebastian said > why not adopt the keyval syntax, I didn't do it in fmatter because I was trying to keep things looking more like `normal latex' so I used more comands rather than extensive use of optional arguments. With a special environment so that undefined commands were skipped (so any class file automatically can ignore anything it does not want to deal with). However... Michael do you want to post your KV suggestion to the wider list?? David 9-Oct-1997 13:25:26-GMT,2524;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA05736 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 07:25:24 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA10016; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 14:58:06 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 211321 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 14:58:04 +0200 Received: from linpwd (linpwd.mpae.gwdg.de [134.76.28.202]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA10001 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 14:58:01 +0200 (MET DST) X-VMS-To: SMTP%"LATEX-L@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de" X-VMS-Cc: DALY Message-ID: <97100914571879@linpwd.mpae.gwdg.de> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 14:57:18 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: "P.W.Daly, MPAe, Lindau, Germany" Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L > I hadn't been thinking of the abstract as part of the front matter > (probably because it normally comes after \maketitle) but perhaps I > should be. The journals I have written class files for want the abstract over the two columns, in which case the abstract is part of the frontmatter. This poses a real headache for inputting. I have seen packages that insist that \maketitle comes AFTER the abstract in order to achieve this, but then it would have to be moved back to before the abstract for other journals. What I do is to keep \maketitle before the abstract, but to have it only enable the title production. The real title making macro (\@xmaketitle) is part of \endabstract and \section. Of course, \@xmaketitle deletes itself after it has been used once. This solution makes \maketitle really redundant, but keeps it for compatibility with other classes. The location is also standard, and should remain so. The only trouble arises is there is no abstract and no \section, something I thought could never arise (until it did, of course, in a "correction paper"). Patrick Daly 9-Oct-1997 13:40:36-GMT,2315;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA06032 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 07:40:34 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA04906; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 13:47:51 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 211263 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 13:47:47 +0200 Received: from multivac (multivac.jb.man.ac.uk [130.88.24.128]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA04882 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 13:47:46 +0200 (MET DST) X-VMS-To: SMTP%"LATEX-L@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de" X-VMS-Cc: HELBIG Message-ID: <97100912451824@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:45:18 GMT Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Phillip Helbig Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L > >%DO WE NEED MORE ARGUMENTS? > >\date{received in original form}{received}{accepted} > How do you accomodate for the following > `Accepted by ...; A name goes here? > received ..... This paper has been with the authors ... > months for ... revision(s). Is this format really used anywhere? Accepted by Joe Smith; received 26 June 1996. This paper has been with the authors 7 months for 3 revisions. -- Phillip Helbig Email ... helbig@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories Tel. ..... +44 1477 571 321 (ext. 297) Jodrell Bank Fax ................. +44 1477 571 618 Macclesfield Telex ................. 36149 JODREL G UK-Cheshire SK11 9DL Web .... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pjh/ My opinions are not necessarily those of NRAL or the University of Manchester. 9-Oct-1997 13:54:26-GMT,3999;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA06380 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 07:54:25 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA11766; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 15:28:24 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 211331 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 15:28:19 +0200 Received: from math.ams.org (math.ams.org [130.44.210.14]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA11753 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 15:28:14 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from axp14.ams.org by math.ams.org via smtpd (for relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) with SMTP; 9 Oct 1997 13:28:05 UT Received: from AXP14.AMS.ORG by AXP14.AMS.ORG (PMDF V5.1-8 #1) id <01IOLI4DXHKG00019Q@AXP14.AMS.ORG> for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 09:27:45 EST MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Mail-system-version: Message-ID: <876403665.25745.BNB@MATH.AMS.ORG> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 09:27:45 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: bbeeton Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <97100910281439@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> although long strings of braced arguments for a single control sequence is the accepted latex convention, i do think that using the key=value syntax (as suggested by sebastian) is preferable in a number of these situations. omission of an unneeded key is easier for the user, and omission of an obligatory key is just as easily detected. sebastian has already pointed out the absence of the author's full name. at ams we extract the front matter to be used for tables of contents and indexes. it would be very helpful to be able to identify unambiguously an author's surname -- it is now impossible to handle Brian Hamilton Kelly without manual intervention, and the proposal does not improve that situation. the actual publication information (although it would be added in production, not by the author) should be accommodated for the purpose of contents lists and indexes: year, month, volume, issue, pages, pii or similar identifier for use as an identifier for electronic publication. we also publish translation journals. for this we need the publication information for the original (possibly including the math reviews number) and translation information (translator, translation editor, possibly other notes on the translation such as "Proof of Theorem 23 added by the author after original publication"). in addition to keywords, our journals carry subject codes in accordance with the math reviews subject classification. we agree with sebastian's comment that the abstract is part of the topmatter; for one of our journals, the abstract is printed at the end. there are not enough addresses; in addition to those shown we have encountered current affiliation, temporary address, current as well as permanent e-mail address (to recognize "visiting" positions), and url information. i'm not convinced that itemization is the best way of handling the address lists, although some counting mechanism is certainly needed. this shouldn't be considered an official ams list, merely a compilation of the most obvious things that i happen to have come across. -- barbara beeton 9-Oct-1997 13:58:11-GMT,2881;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA06451 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 07:57:57 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA05545; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 13:57:49 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 211274 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 13:57:47 +0200 Received: from multivac (multivac.jb.man.ac.uk [130.88.24.128]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA05533 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 13:57:45 +0200 (MET DST) X-VMS-To: SMTP%"LATEX-L@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de" X-VMS-Cc: HELBIG Message-ID: <97100912590093@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:59:01 GMT Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Phillip Helbig Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L > > appropriate here:). The keyword syntax is different from the normal > > LaTeX style; by FORCING the author to include everything, compatibility > > is assured. If optional arguments (either in [] or via omitted > you you allow for {}, so whats the difference? it means we just have > the pain of remembering to say \author{}{Foo Bar} I think there is a difference in concept if not in effect. Normally, optional arguments CAN be left out, whereas they shouldn't be here. If it's really optional, the .cls can't complain, and if it should complain, then it would be bad style to use []. > > keywords) are used then each individual .cls should complain if keywords > > are missing. > which, indeed, is a feature; it provides a good interface for journal > classes to work with Yes, a feature. > > One must also avoid individual packages adding their own > > keywords etc without coordination with others. > again, one might regard that as a feature... Of course. -- Phillip Helbig Email ... helbig@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories Tel. ..... +44 1477 571 321 (ext. 297) Jodrell Bank Fax ................. +44 1477 571 618 Macclesfield Telex ................. 36149 JODREL G UK-Cheshire SK11 9DL Web .... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pjh/ My opinions are not necessarily those of NRAL or the University of Manchester. 9-Oct-1997 14:30:06-GMT,2140;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA07154 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 08:30:03 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA14271; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 16:03:20 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 211364 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 16:03:18 +0200 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1b.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.135]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA14252 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 16:03:12 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dcarlisle.demon.co.uk ([194.222.187.145]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1021178; 9 Oct 97 14:54 BST Received: by dcarlisle.demon.co.uk id m0xJJAC-000OWRC (Debian Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #2); Thu, 9 Oct 1997 15:02:04 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 15:02:04 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: David Carlisle Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <9620-Thu09Oct1997111600+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> (message from Sebastian Rahtz on Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:16:00 +0100) http://www.ma.man.ac.uk/~carlisle/fmatter.tar.gz Contains the code I sent round privately to a few people a while back. As I mentioned in my first message it has a few things that I would change, but since it has been mentioned a few times in this thread I thought I had better distribute that form. Please don't *use* this package in its current form!!! David 10-Oct-1997 9:29:03-GMT,2578;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA02107 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 03:28:47 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA20582; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 11:03:36 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 211740 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 11:03:31 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA20568 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 11:03:29 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.145] (sl119.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.145]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id LAA21748 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 11:03:26 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se (Unverified) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 02:49:52 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L At 11:58 +0000 97/10/09, Phillip Helbig wrote: >> > Should one break the author's name up into initials and surnames, so >> > that the order could be different in the main title and the running head >> > and/or different than the order in which the author would have put them >> you mean the running head might say "Einstein, A"? all i can say is >> that i have not been ever asked to do it... This in fact a good question, relating to the question of international features, as the order of the given and family names may vary between cultures. Thus, a Chinese named "Albert Einstein" probably has "Albert" as family name. (Never mind the unlikely example, if I'd use "Foo Bar", I might be blamed racist. :-) ) Hans Aberg * AMS member: Listing * Email: Hans Aberg 10-Oct-1997 9:31:05-GMT,3320;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA02174 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 03:31:03 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA20652; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 11:04:25 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 211743 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 11:04:24 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA20573 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 11:03:30 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.145] (sl119.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.145]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id LAA21758 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 11:03:29 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se (Unverified) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 02:48:45 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: Re: LaTeX & email (Was: LaTeX journal and publisher macros) To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L >I mentioned wrapping to 72 characters in the previous thread, which I >started and which is indicated by the change in title. Line length in >the files of the LaTeX distribution (which also shouldn't be too long) >wasn't MY original topic at all. There are two topic discussed here, the file distribution limit, and the LaTeX in emails: I think they have been somewhat interrelated in the past, because people would submit LaTeX code in emails, which then could be corrupted along the way. The best way to avoid that is to use the new encoding schemes MIME and file attachments, which are designed so such corruption should not happen. Phillip Helbig mentions the email problem specifically when reading quotes in email: Even though it is possible to avoid it hard wrapping of email text, most emailers do it, because there may be email readers that cannot handle it well otherwise. But it is not necessary to do it: With styled text, quotes are enclosed with an environment ... , in my email reader displayed with a bar at the left hand side of the quote. So quotes can be formatted and quoted as many times as you please. And emailers that can read such email are for free, at least on Mac's and PC's, so there is not much reason to not upgrade. (I mean, if there are advanced, expensive computers that cannot do the simple things that all the inexpensive computers can do, why should we all others bother?) Hans Aberg * AMS member: Listing * Email: Hans Aberg 10-Oct-1997 13:45:43-GMT,2136;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA06505 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 07:45:38 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA06121; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 15:04:40 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 211908 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 15:04:36 +0200 Received: from sarah.albany.edu (sarah.albany.edu [169.226.1.103]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA06110 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 15:04:31 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from fenris.math.albany.edu (fenris.math.albany.edu [169.226.23.39]) by sarah.albany.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA08683 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:02:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mark@localhost) by fenris.math.albany.edu (8.8.4/8.8.3) id JAA04865 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:02:08 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text Message-ID: <199710101302.JAA04865@fenris.math.albany.edu> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:02:08 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Mark Steinberger Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: from "Hans Aberg" at Oct 10, 97 02:49:52 am > Thus, a Chinese named "Albert Einstein" probably has "Albert" as > family name. That depends on whether he's writing for a Chinese audience or a Euro-American one. :-) --Mark 10-Oct-1997 13:52:48-GMT,3009;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA06648 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 07:52:33 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA06479; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 15:10:52 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 211917 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 15:10:50 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA06471 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 15:10:48 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.145] (sl45.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.65]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id PAA13631 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 15:10:46 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se References: Your message of "Wed, 08 Oct 1997 14:14:09 +0200." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 15:10:53 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: Robin Fairbairns : >> This is one aspect that I have in my mind: Computers are getting so fast >> that making a full compile every once in a while does not hurt. > >Every once in a while, maybe. Every time, definitely not. Computers >get faster, and so do discs. But discs get faster slower than >computers (as it were). I can assure you that I don't want to run my >600 files through latex because I've changed one 2-pager... I am not sure this is need to be a problem, because files are cache in RAM, and only written/read from disc when forced to by the OS (when some other program needs the space), or by a save to disc. So you can read all those 600 files into RAM, and then use them at full RAM speed. The real problem is TeX's outmoded file handling system: A file that is opened and closed is probably always written to disc. So if you have 600 aux file and it takes 10 ms on the average to write each, that is a whopping 6 seconds. :-) Hans Aberg * AMS member listing: * Email: Hans Aberg 10-Oct-1997 14:05:47-GMT,3642;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA06984 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 08:05:46 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA07066; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 15:23:36 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 211927 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 15:23:33 +0200 Received: from math.ams.org (math.ams.org [130.44.210.14]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA07037 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 15:23:25 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from axp14.ams.org by math.ams.org via smtpd (for relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) with SMTP; 10 Oct 1997 13:23:15 UT Received: from AXP14.AMS.ORG by AXP14.AMS.ORG (PMDF V5.1-8 #1) id <01IOMX5XKSJK0004D2@AXP14.AMS.ORG> for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:23:09 EST MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Mail-system-version: Message-ID: <876489789.39848.BNB@MATH.AMS.ORG> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:23:09 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: bbeeton Subject: Re: LaTeX & email (Was: LaTeX journal and publisher macros) To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: hans aberg writes, with respect to a request to wrap to 72 characters in e-mail: Phillip Helbig mentions the email problem specifically when reading quotes in email: Even though it is possible to avoid it hard wrapping of email text, most emailers do it, because there may be email readers that cannot handle it well otherwise. But it is not necessary to do it: With styled text, quotes are enclosed with an environment ... , in my email reader displayed with a bar at the left hand side of the quote. So quotes can be formatted and quoted as many times as you please. And emailers that can read such email are for free, at least on Mac's and PC's, so there is not much reason to not upgrade. (I mean, if there are advanced, expensive computers that cannot do the simple things that all the inexpensive computers can do, why should we all others bother?) i can sympathize with this, but i'm unfortunately on the wrong end of this, working on a vms system. when e-mail lines exceed 256 characters, they are often truncated when they reach me. this is much more serious than something that is simply hard to read. though i don't much appreciate all the =-coded translation that occurs in mime-originated messages, i can usually cope with it. it becomes a real problem, however, when i receive e-mail from a list in digested form, some of it mime-processed, some of it not -- then it's impossible to put the entire thing through a mime translator and end up with a reliable result. this is especially pernicious on tex source. there really is some value to the shorter lines. (apologies for being off-topic.) -- barbara beeton 10-Oct-1997 14:49:07-GMT,2558;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA07978 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 08:49:05 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA10810; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 16:19:13 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 211952 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 16:19:08 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA10795 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 16:19:03 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.145] (sl02.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.22]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id QAA20637 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 16:19:02 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se References: from "Hans Aberg" at Oct 10, 97 02:49:52 am Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 15:19:04 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <199710101302.JAA04865@fenris.math.albany.edu> >> Thus, a Chinese named "Albert Einstein" probably has "Albert" as >> family name. > >That depends on whether he's writing for a Chinese audience or a >Euro-American one. :-) Yes, this makes it even more important to distinguish between the family name and the given name(s) in the input. One should probably also input favoured given name, and an eventual nickname. :-) -- The thing is that the input file may be used for searches, and not only typesetting. Hans Aberg * AMS member listing: * Email: Hans Aberg * Home Page: 10-Oct-1997 15:04:51-GMT,4129;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA08466 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:04:49 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA11434; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 16:31:43 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 211965 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 16:31:40 +0200 Received: from multivac (multivac.jb.man.ac.uk [130.88.24.128]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA11423 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 16:31:38 +0200 (MET DST) X-VMS-To: SMTP%"LATEX-L@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de" X-VMS-Cc: HELBIG Message-ID: <97101015230655@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 15:23:06 GMT Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Phillip Helbig Subject: Re: LaTeX & email (Was: LaTeX journal and publisher macros) To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Friday, 10-OCT-1997 15:34:25.67 > hans aberg writes, with respect to a request to wrap to 72 characters > in e-mail: > > Phillip Helbig mentions the email problem specifically when reading > quotes in email: > But it is not necessary to do it: With styled text, quotes are enclosed > with an environment ... , in my email reader displayed > with a bar at the left hand side of the quote. > i can sympathize with this, but i'm unfortunately on the wrong end of > this, working on a vms system. As I am---is that a coincidence? > there really is some value to the shorter lines. There ARE some fancy mailers available for VMS, and I've also had some experience with more `modern' email packages, but chose to stay with good old VMS mail since it can do all the basic stuff a typical email package can, and also some things it can't, and has the advantage of just working out of the box. Especially when one learns the (well-documented) details and combines it with a customised editor (I use EDT) it is quite a powerful system. Lots of email and other packages (especially those with a GUI) have a lot of bells and whistles but really add little functionality, IMHO, and sometimes distract from the true purpose. The fact is, as long as not everyone uses the same operating system, and they shouldn't (unless it's VMS:), then one MUST stick to the lowest common denominator, which means less than 80 characters of ASCII 32--126 or whatever. Many things do fine when sticking to this---TeX, HTML, PostScript and so on, and editing, emailing, and other things demanding portability are no problem, as is modifying the files. While this is a little off-topic, it is important (both in the context of emails to this list as in distribution of source files); the advantages gained by sticking to the minimal configuration are larger than the disadvantages caused by not doing so. At present, there is no completely standardised AND flexible AND good AND available on all platforms (with no price, money or otherwise, to pay) email protocoll, so I think we should stick with the basics. Especially if one wants the same rules to apply to newsgroups etc. -- Phillip Helbig Email ... helbig@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories Tel. ..... +44 1477 571 321 (ext. 297) Jodrell Bank Fax ................. +44 1477 571 618 Macclesfield Telex ................. 36149 JODREL G UK-Cheshire SK11 9DL Web .... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pjh/ My opinions are not necessarily those of NRAL or the University of Manchester. 10-Oct-1997 15:20:25-GMT,2663;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA08873 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:20:20 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA12403; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 16:53:29 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 211981 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 16:53:24 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA12391 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 16:53:21 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.145] (sl47.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.67]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id QAA24354 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 16:53:19 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 16:53:10 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: Re: LaTeX & email (Was: LaTeX journal and publisher macros) To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <876489789.39848.BNB@MATH.AMS.ORG> bbeeton: >I can sympathize with this, but I'm unfortunately on the wrong end of >this, working on a vms system... It is not a problem of the vms, but a problem of having outdated email reading software. Perhaps the vms is so outmoded nobody bothers writing software for it anymore; then it is the sign of getting a new computer. Computers outdate rather fast these days, typically 2-4 years, so it is going to happen soon, even if you try to stretch it. >...Apologies for being off-topic... The main point is that LaTeX needs not being concerned about length 72 or 80 or 256 or something else from the technological point of view, even though one can use it to help up the reading. Hans Aberg * AMS member listing: * Email: Hans Aberg 10-Oct-1997 17:37:48-GMT,3583;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA14344 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 11:37:45 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA20956; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 19:11:37 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 212162 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 19:11:35 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA20948 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 19:11:33 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.145] (sl73.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.99]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id TAA04820 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 19:11:30 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 17:20:28 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: Re: LaTeX & email (Was: LaTeX journal and publisher macros) To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <97101015230655@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Phillip Helbig : >There ARE some fancy mailers available for VMS, and I've also had some >experience with more `modern' email packages, but chose to stay with >good old VMS mail since it can do all the basic stuff a typical email >package can, and also some things it can't, and has the advantage of >just working out of the box.... I have some experience of this on UNIX, because the standard text oriented program "mail" is one of the few that does not corrupt the mailbox, and it is still possiblle to pick it down to another computer. >Lots of email and other packages (especially those with a GUI) have a >lot of bells and whistles but really add little functionality, IMHO, and >sometimes distract from the true purpose. But really few uses non-GUI these days, even on UNIX, and the GUI's are much easier to use; and ease of communication is the true purpose. >.. The fact is, as long as not >everyone uses the same operating system, and they shouldn't (unless it's >VMS:), then one MUST stick to the lowest common denominator, which means >less than 80 characters of ASCII 32--126 or whatever. I think it will be difficult for any holding on to this for a long period of time: When the new email readers become abundant, it will be hard for people to bother about those old emailers; it is the dictatorship of the majority, if you so want. The next step around the corner is Unicode, which is the basis for all new personal computers; surely that will go into the mail system. Sticking to old ASCII will not really be possible. Incidentally, this touches on a LaTeX question: What about LaTeX and Unicode? Hans Aberg * AMS member listing: * Email: Hans Aberg 10-Oct-1997 18:02:42-GMT,3227;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA15151 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:02:39 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA22693; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 19:43:45 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 212202 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 19:43:41 +0200 Received: from multivac (multivac.jb.man.ac.uk [130.88.24.128]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA22686 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 19:43:39 +0200 (MET DST) X-VMS-To: SMTP%"LATEX-L@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de" X-VMS-Cc: HELBIG Message-ID: <97101018374796@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 18:37:48 GMT Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Phillip Helbig Subject: GUI (was: Re: LaTeX & email) To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L > I have some experience of this on UNIX, because the standard text > oriented program "mail" is one of the few that does not corrupt the > mailbox, and it is still possiblle to pick it down to another computer. VMS MAIL is much more than the standard UNIX mail:) > But really few uses non-GUI these days, even on UNIX, and the GUI's are > much easier to use; and ease of communication is the true purpose. I tend to avoid GUIs for four reasons. 1) If one can `properly' type, then a hand on the mouse means a hand not on the keyboard and really slows one down, whereas doing things from the keyboard (not necessarily typed commands, but using hot keys like the keypad on VTxxx terminals and so on, which one can programme to suit individual needs etc) is much quicker. 2) There is less risk of clicking in the wrong place. 3) It is easier when logging in remotely (like from a conference on the other side of the world) since an ASCII screen interface must transmit much less information across the net. 4) It consumes less resources. Sure, computers are faster, but right now I have a multi-day batch job running which is getting over 99.5% of the CPU time, and I don't notice this AT ALL when doing email, whereas I probably would with a GUI, or if I didn't I would slow down the batch job, which I don't want to do. -- Phillip Helbig Email ... helbig@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories Tel. ..... +44 1477 571 321 (ext. 297) Jodrell Bank Fax ................. +44 1477 571 618 Macclesfield Telex ................. 36149 JODREL G UK-Cheshire SK11 9DL Web .... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pjh/ My opinions are not necessarily those of NRAL or the University of Manchester. 11-Oct-1997 19:53:12-GMT,2435;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA01339 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 13:53:10 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA18308; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 15:28:29 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 212886 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 15:28:27 +0200 Received: from kralle.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (kralle.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.8.158]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA18300 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 15:28:26 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from Ufrank@localhost) by kralle.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA20411 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 15:28:26 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kralle.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE: Ufrank set sender to latex3 using -f Received: (from latex3@localhost) by frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de (8.6.9/8.6.9) id MAA06559; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 12:16:05 +0100 References: <97101015230655@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Message-ID: <199710111116.MAA06559@frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de> Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 12:16:05 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Frank Mittelbach Subject: LaTeX and UNICODE To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: Hans Aberg writes: > Incidentally, this touches on a LaTeX question: What about LaTeX and Unicode? nothing -- no issue -- no problem, except that it would make some parts of the current kernel unnecessary (ie 8bit support) if you think a bit about it then this isn't a question of LaTeX but first of all a question of the underlying program TeX which is 8bit. There is a unicode version of TeX under development which is called Omega and LaTeX does run under Omega. frank 13-Oct-1997 3:13:01-GMT,3377;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA02398 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 21:13:00 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id EAA26708; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 04:52:59 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 213360 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 04:52:57 +0200 Received: from dcdrjh.fnal.gov (dcdrjh.fnal.gov [131.225.103.66]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA26701 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 04:52:55 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from herber@localhost) by dcdrjh.fnal.gov (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA07554 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 21:52:54 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <199710130252.VAA07554@dcdrjh.fnal.gov> Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 21:52:54 -0500 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: "Randolph J. Herber" Subject: Re: LaTeX & email (Was: LaTeX journal and publisher macros) To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L The LaTeX (and TeX) world is not simply just: PCs of either the IBM or Apple types, DEC VMS systems of either the VAX or Alpha types, UNIX systems of any of a large number of types, mainframes running ancient operating systems (which are not bad or evil just because they are old), etc. The display system on some of these systems are not graphic displays with the capacity to have arbitary widths or heights. Some users in the LaTeX and TeX world simply do not have a choice about what mail user agents they can use or of the mail transport agent their system uses. A mail user agent is a program the user uses to generate and to read mail. A mail transport agent is a program used to transfer prepared mail from system to system. Either mail user agents, mail transport agents, or underlying operating systems may impose limits on the length of lines. These limits may seem Draconian to some people; but they are facts of life to some users. It is easy enough to type your text with line lengths less than 80 characters with carriage returns at the ends of the lines. These carriage returns are what some _word processing programs_ call hard stops. The use of paragraph length lines is Draconian to user whom may not be able to such long lines. The use of line lengths of less than 80 characters simply is good manners. Randolph J. Herber, herber@dcdrjh.fnal.gov, +1 630 840 2966, CD/OSS/CDF CDF-PK-149F Mail Stop 318 Fermilab, Kirk & Pine Rds., P.O. Box 500, Batavia, IL 60510-0500. (Speaking for myself and not for US, US DOE, FNAL nor URA.) (Product, trade, or service marks herein belong to their respective owners.) N 41 50 26.3 W 88 14 54.4 and altitude 700' approximately, WGS84 datum. ``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer 13-Oct-1997 3:13:01-GMT,3377;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA02398 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 21:13:00 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id EAA26708; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 04:52:59 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 213360 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 04:52:57 +0200 Received: from dcdrjh.fnal.gov (dcdrjh.fnal.gov [131.225.103.66]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA26701 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 04:52:55 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from herber@localhost) by dcdrjh.fnal.gov (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA07554 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 21:52:54 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <199710130252.VAA07554@dcdrjh.fnal.gov> Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 21:52:54 -0500 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: "Randolph J. Herber" Subject: Re: LaTeX & email (Was: LaTeX journal and publisher macros) To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L The LaTeX (and TeX) world is not simply just: PCs of either the IBM or Apple types, DEC VMS systems of either the VAX or Alpha types, UNIX systems of any of a large number of types, mainframes running ancient operating systems (which are not bad or evil just because they are old), etc. The display system on some of these systems are not graphic displays with the capacity to have arbitary widths or heights. Some users in the LaTeX and TeX world simply do not have a choice about what mail user agents they can use or of the mail transport agent their system uses. A mail user agent is a program the user uses to generate and to read mail. A mail transport agent is a program used to transfer prepared mail from system to system. Either mail user agents, mail transport agents, or underlying operating systems may impose limits on the length of lines. These limits may seem Draconian to some people; but they are facts of life to some users. It is easy enough to type your text with line lengths less than 80 characters with carriage returns at the ends of the lines. These carriage returns are what some _word processing programs_ call hard stops. The use of paragraph length lines is Draconian to user whom may not be able to such long lines. The use of line lengths of less than 80 characters simply is good manners. Randolph J. Herber, herber@dcdrjh.fnal.gov, +1 630 840 2966, CD/OSS/CDF CDF-PK-149F Mail Stop 318 Fermilab, Kirk & Pine Rds., P.O. Box 500, Batavia, IL 60510-0500. (Speaking for myself and not for US, US DOE, FNAL nor URA.) (Product, trade, or service marks herein belong to their respective owners.) N 41 50 26.3 W 88 14 54.4 and altitude 700' approximately, WGS84 datum. ``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer 13-Oct-1997 10:01:22-GMT,2638;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA09619 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 04:01:20 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA10249; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 11:20:42 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 213623 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 11:20:37 +0200 Received: from heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk (exim@heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.32.11]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA10223 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 11:20:31 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dorceus.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.1.34] (rf) by heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.70 #3) id 0xKgfv-0000HU-00; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 10:20:31 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 10:20:29 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Robin Fairbairns Subject: Re: [WILDLY OFF TOPIC] LaTeX & email To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 10 Oct 1997 17:20:28 +0200." > But really few uses non-GUI these days, even on UNIX, and the GUI's are > much easier to use; and ease of communication is the true purpose. Speak for yourself. GUIs are designed for people who can't type, and those whose hands haven't (yet) given way to the abuse of for ever being switched between usages, and don't have other physical problems with their arms/wrists/hands. I fall in the latter category only: I can type, but the more I have to muck about with a mouse, the less time I can spend at the keyboard before I have to move on to something else. Keep your beastly GUIs, if you must, but don't try and impose them on me because you've fallen for someone else's rhetoric about their value. And, of course, you *do* impose an hideous GUI on me if you so wrap your mail up in Mime that I can't read it without passing it through a Mime decoding engine. Robin *This* mail is Mime compliant. It can co-exist with lying dwarves that sing in German. 13-Oct-1997 12:24:10-GMT,4502;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA11840 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 06:23:28 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA17479; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 13:06:23 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 213755 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 13:06:19 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA17469 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 13:06:14 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.63] (sl111.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.137]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id NAA04126 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 13:06:11 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se References: Your message of "Fri, 10 Oct 1997 17:20:28 +0200." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 13:06:34 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: MILDLY OFF TOPIC (Was: [WILDLY OFF TOPIC] (LaTeX & email)) To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: Robin Fairbairns : >> But really few uses non-GUI these days, even on UNIX, and the GUI's are >> much easier to use; and ease of communication is the true purpose. ... >GUIs are designed for people who can't type, and those whose hands >haven't (yet) given way to the abuse of for ever being switched >between usages, and don't have other physical problems with their >arms/wrists/hands. I think you have misunderstood GUI's: It is a long time people thought GUI's should replace other means of input, such as typing. Different techniques complement each other. Keeping it in touch with the LaTeX project, the problem you have to face with your attitude is that we see an ongoing evolution, where the graphical features more and more become available: I recall that in the mid 80's, somebody had sent Knuth a letter, and he said, which was funny in those days, that he received a typeset letter [which said Knuth does not reply to letters anymore]. But who would react like that to a "typeset letter" in these days? It is becoming more and more the opposite. Now, we see the same evolution coming by in email communications. The ideas developed in TeX and LaTeX will be more and more available there too. When the use of those new protocols becomes abundant, one will have that as a standard for email communications, and those hard-dyers will have a hard time asking everyone for specially non-styled email. I have seen this happen before, with the national glyphs, having diacritical marks, as in Swedish. Before MIME, people would use different ASCII based systems; one could try using 8-bit, but it does not really work out on the Internet. Then comes MIME, and there is a chaotic period, where some use it, and others do not. At a later stage, few would use those old non-MIME systems. One could also think of the change LaTeX209 -> LaTeX2e. :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) Remember that the typeset output of TeX and LaTeX is the old times GUI; the only difference is that it is not interactive. In mathematics, one started to use that, because it can be used to better communicate the logical contents. So, if you hate GUI's so much, why do not strip all that graphical out of TeX and LaTeX too; it would simplify the discussions in this group enormously -- they would not be needed. :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) Hans Aberg * AMS member listing: * Email: Hans Aberg 13-Oct-1997 13:29:20-GMT,2834;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA13071 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 07:29:18 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA21465; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 13:59:32 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 213800 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 13:59:29 +0200 Received: from pillar.elsevier.co.uk (root@pillar.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.222.35]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA21335 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 13:59:09 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from snowdon.elsevier.co.uk (snowdon.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.197.164]) by pillar.elsevier.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA08274 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 12:57:28 +0100 (BST) Received: from SRAHTZ (actually host srahtz.elsevier.co.uk) by snowdon.elsevier.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Mon, 13 Oct 1997 12:56:46 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: X-Mailer: VM 6.33 under Emacs 19.34.6 Message-ID: <6389-Mon13Oct1997125506+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 12:55:06 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Sebastian Rahtz Subject: Re: MILDLY OFF TOPIC (Was: [WILDLY OFF TOPIC] (LaTeX & email)) To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: what is the relationship between GUIs and MIME? Robin can decode Mime attachments like anyone else, using the keyboard. Of course if his correspondent sends him a Word file, he'll need to load Word to read it, but if its a MIME-encoded .tex file, he'll have no problem. perhaps I am just being smug because i finally got a working MIME setup for Gnu Emacs and the VM mail reader, after 1000001 tries :-} seems to me that emacs gives you best of all worlds these days; you can drive everything with keystrokes, explicit commands, menus or mice. since it can even talk to you with Raman's emacsspeak it'll even do for we oldies when our eyesight goes. off-topic or what? Sebastian 13-Oct-1997 14:34:07-GMT,5710;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA14406 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 08:33:30 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA00238; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 15:47:18 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 213852 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 15:47:12 +0200 Received: from dcdrjh.fnal.gov (dcdrjh.fnal.gov [131.225.103.66]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA00214 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 15:47:04 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from herber@localhost) by dcdrjh.fnal.gov (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA08549 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 08:46:34 -0500 (CDT) References: Your message of "Fri, 10 Oct 1997 17:20:28 +0200." Message-ID: <199710131346.IAA08549@dcdrjh.fnal.gov> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 08:46:34 -0500 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: "Randolph J. Herber" Subject: Re: MILDLY OFF TOPIC (Was: [WILDLY OFF TOPIC] (LaTeX & email)) To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L The following header lines retained to affect attribution: |Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 13:06:34 +0200 |Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project |From: Hans Aberg |Subject: MILDLY OFF TOPIC (Was: [WILDLY OFF TOPIC] (LaTeX & email)) |To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L ... | :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) | Remember that the typeset output of TeX and LaTeX is the old times GUI; |the only difference is that it is not interactive. In mathematics, one |started to use that, because it can be used to better communicate the |logical contents. One of the reasons that I like and use LaTeX (and sometimes even the underlying TeX) is that they are _not_ GUIs. Rather, their _output_ is graphical in nature. They work quite well on my ancient, non-GUI computer systems. They work quite well in a similar manner, without wasting extensive computer resources continually updating a WYSIWYG graphics display, on my SGI workstation at work. | So, if you hate GUI's so much, why do not strip all that graphical out of |TeX and LaTeX too; it would simplify the discussions in this group |enormously -- they would not be needed. :-) Just as GUI interfaces are not needed and in my case not wanted for the input side of LaTeX and Tex, GUIs are inappropriate for electronic mail when those GUIs prevent access to the content for some of the audience. Sweden has been for quite some time a leader in adapting public systems, such as electronic mail and public sidewalks, so that they are accessable and usable by all. The request for text lines of less than 80 characters is similar in spirit to a request to place wheelchair ramps onto sidewalks at intersections. I would prefer that extensive mark-up language be left out of electronic mail messages. Sometimes some mark up is necessary to facilitate making one's point. The issues of quoted-printable and base 64 encoding are separate; but related issues. The electronic mail systems were designed in North America using the _7-bit_ ASCII character which has little to no provision for national characters of many languages using Latin characters and no provision whatsoever for languages which require wider characters. Please remember that some 7-bit links still exist and are in use. It is for these reasons that quoted- printable (the form with all the equal signs) and base 64 encoding (the form that resembles line noise) which are the MIME encodings that permit the transport of electronic mail over such 7-bit communications links without damage. They were designed to permit the safe transport of electronic mail over communications links that were designed for North American communication needs. MIME is the ``wheelramps'' for these nation languages. The electronic mail standards are being changed to permit the safe transport of 8-bit electronic mail which will the tranport of most non ideographic languages directly. Then the ``only'' problem will be the generation and display of these messages. | :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) | Hans Aberg | * AMS member listing: | * Email: Hans Aberg Randolph J. Herber, herber@dcdrjh.fnal.gov, +1 630 840 2966, CD/OSS/CDF CDF-PK-149F Mail Stop 318 Fermilab, Kirk & Pine Rds., P.O. Box 500, Batavia, IL 60510-0500. (Speaking for myself and not for US, US DOE, FNAL nor URA.) (Product, trade, or service marks herein belong to their respective owners.) N 41 50 26.3 W 88 14 54.4 and altitude 700' approximately, WGS84 datum. ``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer 13-Oct-1997 15:43:09-GMT,4375;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA16064 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 09:43:07 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA05623; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 16:55:32 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 213955 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 16:55:27 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA05595 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 16:55:19 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.63] (sl61.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.81]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id QAA27835 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 16:55:18 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 16:55:20 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: Re: MILDLY OFF TOPIC (LaTeX & email) To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <6389-Mon13Oct1997125506+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> Sebastian Rahtz : >What is the relationship between GUIs and MIME? I am not an expert on this, but MIME is supposed to rather extensive, allowing not only simple 8-bit encodings, but also for allowing graphics and sounds in emails. Now, people feel that strictly speaking a computer GUI should be interactive, so perhaps this does not qualify. > Of course if his >correspondent sends him a Word file, he'll need to load Word to read >it, but if its a MIME-encoded .tex file, he'll have no problem. One makes the setup automatic by the use of file name extensions: The MIME encoding ensures that the binary files pass through the mail system unaltered. Then I have the setup so that .dvi files are automatically launched to a DVI reader, .pdf files are sent to the PDF reader Acrobat, and so on: The received email has these attachments displayed with small icons; I just activate an icon, and the file is displayed properly in the right program. >Perhaps I am just being smug because I finally got a working mime >setup for gnu emacs and the vm mail reader, after 1000001 tries :-} > >Seems to me that emacs gives you best of all worlds these days; Emacs can handle styled text (if somebody bothers writing a script), so I think there should be possible with Emacs. Styled text is particularly nice with computer code, like C++, Haskell, and so on: Styles are programmed to show up dependant on the syntactic context, comments key words and so on. (But I do not know if there are such TeX/LaTeX styling scripts written. -- If now LaTeX builds on a Pascal syntax, it should be possible to get some nice displays.) On my Mac, function definitions and the like of a file are automatically displayed in a list; click a button, and you jump to that definition. One can click on an URL in the text in any program, and a program that can handle that protocol is automatically selected to act on that URL: In fact, very convenient. > You >can drive everything with keystrokes, explicit commands, menus or >mice. So this is a good example: The GUI version of Emacs is in fact easy to use, without one having to learn all those cryptic key combination, but you can still use command key-strokes for often used operations. Hans Aberg * Email: Hans Aberg * AMS member listing: 13-Oct-1997 15:52:15-GMT,2141;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA16342 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 09:52:12 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA07358; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:16:51 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 213988 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:16:49 +0200 Received: from heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk (exim@heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.32.11]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA07340 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:16:46 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dorceus.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.1.34] (rf) by heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.70 #3) id 0xKmEg-0003mA-00; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 16:16:46 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 16:16:44 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Robin Fairbairns Subject: Re: WILDLY OFF TOPIC (LaTeX & email) To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 13 Oct 1997 16:55:20 +0200." Enough, already. This is absolutely nothing to do with LaTeX. Hans (for reasons of his own) believes that pointy-clicky-shooty interfaces are good for him. I *know* that they're bad for my arthritic old hands, Sebastian (younger man that he is) is chuffed with his emacs setup. Each to his own, but let's *not* waste ANY MORE BANDWIDTH on the LaTeX mailing list about it. And please let's not play silly buggers mime-ifying messages that don't need them, OK? Robin 13-Oct-1997 21:09:45-GMT,3596;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA24353 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 15:09:43 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA24196; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 22:44:16 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 214546 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 22:44:12 +0200 Received: from kralle.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (kralle.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.8.158]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA24179 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 22:44:06 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from Ufrank@localhost) by kralle.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA22189 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 22:44:07 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kralle.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE: Ufrank set sender to latex3 using -f Received: (from latex3@localhost) by frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de (8.6.9/8.6.9) id UAA09112; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 20:12:45 +0100 References: Message-ID: <199710131912.UAA09112@frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 20:12:45 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Frank Mittelbach Subject: Re: WILDLY OFF TOPIC (LaTeX & email) To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: Robin Fairbairns writes: > Each to his own, but let's *not* waste ANY MORE BANDWIDTH on the LaTeX > mailing list about it. And please let's not play silly buggers > mime-ifying messages that don't need them, OK? thanks very much for a) changing the subject some time ago b) suggesting to stop this type of extremely unproductive discussion contrary to some people who seem to write interesting remarks to any topic they see flying by during the day i do scan this type of mail usually in the evening after work which means that a) i pay for every mail message that comes through my phone line which is a lot b) i easily overlook the interesting messages c) i don't get much time to productively work on *real* stuff that might be useful to others i think it would be much more helpful if people would write less handwaving mails and instead think a bit first and then produce more thoughtful messages instead of just making sure that everybody knows they are currently online to the questions discussed lately on this list this would be (from my point of view) - further comments on the interface proposal for frontmatter - an alternative proposal with reasoning why different - thoughts on keyword value syntax for such a proposal - or some older stuff like language interfaces; nobody ever bothered to argue the ideas brought forward by chris and me in that article for TUG97 - or ... all under an appropriate subject line please frank (feeling frustated after a day working on monitoring software for SAP --- and no, i don't what to know yor thoughts on SAP not on this list anyway :-) 13-Oct-1997 21:15:08-GMT,5659;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA24492 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 15:15:06 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA24220; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 22:44:35 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 214549 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 22:44:33 +0200 Received: from kralle.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (kralle.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.8.158]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA24189 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 22:44:09 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from Ufrank@localhost) by kralle.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA22220 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 22:44:10 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kralle.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE: Ufrank set sender to latex3 using -f Received: (from latex3@localhost) by frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de (8.6.9/8.6.9) id VAA09228; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 21:45:37 +0100 References: <97100911582847@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Message-ID: <199710132045.VAA09228@frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 21:45:37 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Frank Mittelbach Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <97100911582847@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Phillip Helbig writes: > > > Should one break the author's name up into initials and surnames, so > > > that the order could be different in the main title and the running head > > > and/or different than the order in which the author would have put them > > you mean the running head might say "Einstein, A"? all i can say is > > that i have not been ever asked to do it... > > What about just the last names (no initials) in the running head? > Or should there be ONE command for the running head? This might prove > to inflexible, since some will want all author names, some et al. and so > on. it is most definitely to restrictive as there are styles that want to construct their running head names from author info in special ways. but the interface might have a specification possibility that allows to give a suggestion for running head. the specification could either say that it is up to the class implementation to use it (if present) or ignore it always or one could specify that it will always overwrite constructed running heads both would have advantages and disadvantages > > by the way, i think that using multiple parameters in this, and other, > > macros is not very friendly. why not adopt the keyval syntax, ie > > > > \date{communicated=xxxx,revised=xxxx} > > > > which allows a more elegant way to omit arguments, and identify what > > you are doing. i know its just sugar, but it would make bits of what > > you suggest easier to read > > Two problems here (perhaps some graphics/graphicx comments are > appropriate here:). The keyword syntax is different from the normal > LaTeX style; by FORCING the author to include everything, compatibility > is assured. If optional arguments (either in [] or via omitted > keywords) are used then each individual .cls should complain if keywords > are missing. One must also avoid individual packages adding their own > keywords etc without coordination with others. i would not rule out keyword value syntax just because it isn't standard LaTeX behavior right now. on the contrary, within the LaTeX project we think that keyword value is the way to go for several reasons. That does not mean that the current keyval implementation as used for graphix can or should be used as a general model in implementation, but we are talking about specification not implementation here. as to whether extensibility is a feature advantage or disadvantage: again this is partly something that can be best evaluated once we do have a full spec. If such a spec includes a number of mandatory keywords, a number of optional ones but allows classes to add additional keywords that are supposed to be ignored by classes not implementing them then this can be a big improved. Of course it might also produce chaos if class A defines foo to mean X and class B defines foo to mean Y then we are back at incompatible classes. However i don't really think this is a very likely case. I do see such extensibility more for inhouse stuff, eg suppose that the AMS has some class amsA.cls and the paper is accepted for journal A. Now in production inhouse they use amsA-prod.cls adding additional keywords as needed. Now if this file goes back to the user for proofing he still uses amsA as the -prod version is not distributed. here the additional keywords are then simply ignored. what i do think is that we need to come up with a syntax (and keywords) that cover most of the current standard and special cases and then this extra extensibility will most likely prove beneficial. its probably then similar to something like bibtex where people have added fields to their bst styles and private bib files without really causing incompatibilities. frank 13-Oct-1997 21:58:40-GMT,2783;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA25523 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 15:58:38 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA25260; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 23:25:14 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 214568 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 23:25:09 +0200 Received: from plmsc.psu.edu (planck.plmsc.psu.edu [128.118.41.212]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA25248 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 23:25:03 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from boris@localhost) by plmsc.psu.edu (8.8.2/8.8.2) id RAA06643; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:24:58 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: boris@planck MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:24:55 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Boris Veytsman Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <199710132045.VAA09228@frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de> Phillip Helbig writes: > > Should one break the author's name up into initials and surnames, so > > that the order could be different in the main title and the running head > > and/or different than the order in which the author would have put them > > you mean the running head might say "Einstein, A"? all i can say is > > that i have not been ever asked to do it... > > > What about just the last names (no initials) in the running head? > Or should there be ONE command for the running head? This might prove > to inflexible, since some will want all author names, some et al. and so > on. Maybe BibTeX-like syntax will work, i.e. something like \author{Albert Einstein} and \author{Einstein, Albert} would produce same output determined *only* by house class? Then house classes could process \author declarations and extract, if required, both Albert Einstein in title page and A.~Einstein in the running head? Actually BibTeX has a very subtle algorithm of dealing with author names; I think it is possible to reimplement it in TeX for journal styles. Good luck -Boris Home page 13-Oct-1997 23:33:44-GMT,3496;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA27563 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:33:42 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id BAA28042; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 01:13:01 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 214670 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 01:13:00 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA28031 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 01:12:58 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.63] (sl99.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.125]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id BAA02382 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 01:12:56 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se References: <97100911582847@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> <97100911582847@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 01:13:15 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <199710132045.VAA09228@frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de> At 21:45 +0100 97/10/13, Frank Mittelbach wrote: > > > by the way, i think that using multiple parameters in this, and other, > > > macros is not very friendly. why not adopt the keyval syntax, ie > > > > > > \date{communicated=xxxx,revised=xxxx} ... >If such a spec includes a number of mandatory keywords, a number of >optional ones but allows classes to add additional keywords that are >supposed to be ignored by classes not implementing them then this can >be a big improved. Of course it might also produce chaos if class A >defines foo to mean X and class B defines foo to mean Y then we are >back at incompatible classes. This can be sorted out by ideas of object orientation: Class A uses local names A/foo, and class B uses local names B/foo; thus they do not clash. So perhaps class or object "article" would define \article/communicated % Date when article is communicated. \article/revised % Date when article is revised. giving room for class journal to define \journal/revised % Date when journal issue is revised. putting in the revision dates of the articles in its own \journal/article structure, taking say a number as an argument, so that \journal/article5{revised} might expand to the date article #5 was revised (or something). It is then possible to hide away the internal "/" structures by environment style commands. I have done programming in this style. -- But I am not sure if TeX getting slow by long names. Hans Aberg * Email: Hans Aberg * AMS member listing: 13-Oct-1997 23:41:28-GMT,2200;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA27762 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:41:27 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id BAA27750; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 01:00:43 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 214664 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 01:00:42 +0200 Received: from math.uci.edu (root@math.uci.edu [128.200.174.70]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA27743 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 01:00:40 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from rasha.math.uci.edu by math.uci.edu (8.8.5) id QAA12272; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 16:00:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rasha.math.uci.edu by rasha.math.uci.edu (8.8.5) id XAA19036; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 23:00:35 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (X11; I; IRIX 6.2 IP22) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <97100911582847@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> <199710132045.VAA09228@frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <3442A811.41C6@math.uci.edu> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 16:00:34 -0700 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Marcel Oliver Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Is the APS involved in this discussion? Not so long ago they used RevTeX which apparently has compatibility problems with LaTeX (I don't have any personal experience). I remember hearing that they were working on an update. This discussion might be a chance to make sure a significant part of the LaTeXing world is not once again locked into a separate standard. Marcel 14-Oct-1997 8:59:19-GMT,3922;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA08306 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 02:59:16 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA11519; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 10:20:36 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 214871 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 10:20:33 +0200 Received: from artemis.rus.uni-stuttgart.de (artemis.rus.uni-stuttgart.de [129.69.18.28]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA11508 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 10:20:28 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from godot (godot-fd.itap.physik.uni-stuttgart.de [129.69.18.184]) by artemis.rus.uni-stuttgart.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA09953 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 10:20:27 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from tex@localhost) by godot (950413.SGI.8.6.12/8.6.11) id KAA17656; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 10:20:23 +0200 Message-ID: <199710140820.KAA17656@godot> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 10:20:23 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: TeX Manager Subject: [markp@aps.org: Re: revtex] was: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Hi, this is what Mark Pheffer from APS answered me, when I asked, if there might be an updated RevTeX version. Maybe one should send them an overview over the discussion related to this subject (not me, since I only read this mailing list at a glimpse, so I certainly do not have this overview). -- Jochen Englert Institut fuer Theoretische und Angewandte Physik 0711-685-5265 Pfaffenwaldring 57/VI 70550 Stuttgart 6/350 Fax: 685-5271 tex@itap.physik.uni-stuttgart.de ------- Start of forwarded message ------- Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 12:23:50 -0400 From: Mark Pheffer To: tex@ITAP.Physik.Uni-Stuttgart.De In-reply-to: <199708271024.MAA07744@godot> (message from TeX Manager on Wed, 27 Aug 1997 12:24:52 +0200) Subject: Re: revtex Hi, Yes, there are plans for a new version of REVTeX, but I'm not sure when it will be. Right now it's just in the planning stages. Mark Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 12:24:52 +0200 From: TeX Manager Dear sirs, I have a question concerning REVTeX. REVTeX is the preferred way to submit papers to the journals of the APS. Unfortunately the current version seems to run only in the compatibility mode of LaTeX2e. This means, that writers have to write in the - in the meantime ancient - LaTeX209. We have now people at the institute who did never learn LaTeX209, so for them REVTeX is rather inconvenient. Are there plans for a more modern version of REVTeX? Yours sincerely, Jochen Englert, LaTeX manager -- Jochen Englert Institut fuer Theoretische und Angewandte Physik 0711-685-5265 Pfaffenwaldring 57/VI 70550 Stuttgart 6/350 Fax: 685-5271 tex@itap.physik.uni-stuttgart.de - -- ############################################################ Mark Pheffer Senior Technical Projects Specialist The American Physical Society 1 Research Rd. Box 9000 e-mail: markp@aps.org Ridge, NY 11961-9000 phone: 516-591-4000 ############################################################ ------- End of forwarded message ------- 14-Oct-1997 9:34:32-GMT,4012;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA08925 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 03:34:26 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA14401; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:02:35 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 214886 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:02:32 +0200 Received: from linpwd (linpwd.mpae.gwdg.de [134.76.28.202]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA14386 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:02:29 +0200 (MET DST) X-VMS-To: SMTP%"LATEX-L@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de" X-VMS-Cc: DALY Message-ID: <97101411014709@linpwd.mpae.gwdg.de> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:01:47 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: "P.W.Daly, MPAe, Lindau, Germany" Subject: Re: [markp@aps.org: Re: revtex] To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L I recently discovered on the TeX-Live 2 CD-ROM a file revtex.cls. This is not an update to LaTeX2e, but rather a patch to allow revtex(.sty) work in compatibility mode! I append it here for your interest since it seems not to be well known. Patrick And now for my signature: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Patrick W. Daly Tel. [+49] 5556-979-279 Max-Planck-Institut fuer Aeronomie Fax. [+49] 5556-979-240 Max-Planck-Str. 2 D-37191 Katlenburg-Lindau Internet: daly@linmpi.mpg.de Germany ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ cut here ---------------------------------- %%%% Start of file revtex.cls %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %% %% This file allows REVTeX v3.0 to function correctly under %% the 12/94 release of LaTeX 2e. Put this file wherever %% revtex.sty is. Continue to use \documentstyle{revtex} %% (with the correct options) and REVTeX will run normally %% in compatibility mode. Thanks to David Carlisle for %% pointing out this fix. \ifx\every@math@size\undefined\else \let\old@expast\@expast \def\@expast#1{\old@expast{#1}\let\@tempa\reserved@a} \fi \input{revtex.sty} %%%% End of file revtex.cls %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% \endinput A couple of issues have arisen with the release of LaTeX 2e, and specifically with the 12/95 release. One is that the internal table/array commands of LaTeX have changed. This affects REVTeX's redefinitions, but there is a workaround. The following should be saved to filename revtex.cls and put into the same directory as your version 3.0 revtex.sty file. You should continue to use compatibility mode (i.e., \documentstyle rather than \documentclass) as this is not a full-fledged 2e class. Also, in compatibility mode REVTeX handles the amsfonts and amssymb options by looking for the amsfonts.sty and amssymb.sty files. This should work as long as you are using the beta of the AMS LaTeX files that are now on CTAN. When amssymb.sty, amsfonts.sty, amsgen.sty, and all the .fd files were made available to TeX (after unpacking via amslatex.ins and amsfonts.ins) REVTeX seemed to run OK with the amsfonts and amssymb style options. No testing was done with older macros (if there were any, ever . . .). Chris Hamlin American Institute of Physics, 500 Sunnyside Blvd, Woodbury, NY 11797-2999 Internet: chamlin@aip.org Phone: 516/576-2335 FAX: 516/349-7669 ----------------------------- end of appended file ------------------------- 14-Oct-1997 10:37:54-GMT,2839;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA09886 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 04:37:52 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA19430; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 12:08:21 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 214787 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 12:08:19 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA19422 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 12:08:17 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.124] (sl98.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.124]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id MAA08085 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 12:08:15 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 12:05:57 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: LaTeX Syntax To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L I think Mittelbach explained here that Lamport constructed LaTeX around a Pascal look-a-like syntax. I think that the LaTeX project (if not already done) should decide if this syntax should be official or not with respect to inputted code: If so, there should be tools, helping the user to ensure that the input syntax is correct. Let me illustrate the problem: I use to write \newcommand\foo{...} but the LaTeX syntax is (I think) \newcommand{\foo}{...} A spellchecker I use would expect the latter, and stop spellchecking entirely if it encounters the former. Now, if the syntax is official, this is correct behavior, but if it is unofficial (that is, something just used internally by the LaTeX design team), it is incorrect. In other words, the problem shows up in the interface between LaTeX and other programs. One such tool for recognizing the LaTeX syntax could be showing the source code in a text editor with styled text. But one would also expect some syntax checker being available. Hans Aberg * Email: Hans Aberg * AMS member listing: 14-Oct-1997 11:08:26-GMT,4108;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA10364 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 05:08:22 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA21507; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 12:39:41 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 214826 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 12:39:38 +0200 Received: from multivac (multivac.jb.man.ac.uk [130.88.24.128]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA21496 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 12:39:34 +0200 (MET DST) X-VMS-To: SMTP%"LATEX-L@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de" X-VMS-Cc: HELBIG Message-ID: <97101411341764@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:34:17 GMT Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Phillip Helbig Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L > I wholeheartedly agree with Sebastian. In addition, I feel that the > BibTeX algorithm is seriously slanted towards European languages (more > precisely, languages whose impact was felt in the USA prints at the > time BibTeX was being designed). I suspect it's inadequate to `world- > wide publishing' -- is Oren listening to this list? -- or can someone > else comment on whether the eagerly-awaited BibTeX v1.0 is going to > extend the algorithm anywhere? Even if BibTeX could be made to work, a more straightforward syntax would make things clearer for all involved. An important issue is whether anyone has any reason NOT to go for keywords (in all aspects of this journal macros business), considering that they do go against the LaTeX grain in some sense. We've been concentrating on front matter, but another aspect is how to write things like the abbreviation for et cetera. In italics or not? etc or etc. (with a .)? That's four combinations. What about color/ colour and so on? Portability would require commands for these, \etc and so on, rather trivially defined by the corresponding .cls. > I would hope that the APS _is_ at least monitoring the discussion, but > if they are, I would suggest they're keeping remarkably quiet. May be someone can say `hello?' > However, being as how it's now more than two years since I was first > told that a RevTeX2e was imminent, I've rather given up waiting for > its actual appearance... Maybe they believe that the revtex.cls that > Patrick Daly mentioned _is_ RevTeX2e? Could be. Many normal users have LaTeX2e on their system, and if it works, sort of think they're `using' LaTeX2e, whereas it might just be a wrapper for 2.09 or even compatibility mode. As I've said before, there is really no reason NOT to go to LaTeX2e, but there might be a lack of awareness in the larger user community as to why they should do so. I've been monitoring the discussion, and when it dies down a bit will try to put everything together into a proposal more refined than my original rough-and-ready version. It would be nice to have several suggestions for the full template (as opposed to just commenting on specific aspects, though that is valuable in its own right, of course) which should be clearly indicated as such. -- Phillip Helbig Email ... helbig@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories Tel. ..... +44 1477 571 321 (ext. 297) Jodrell Bank Fax ................. +44 1477 571 618 Macclesfield Telex ................. 36149 JODREL G UK-Cheshire SK11 9DL Web .... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pjh/ 14-Oct-1997 11:11:08-GMT,3744;000000000401 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA10391 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 05:11:01 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA20740; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 12:27:13 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 214806 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 12:27:11 +0200 Received: from heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk (exim@heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.32.11]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA20719 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 12:27:08 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dorceus.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.1.34] (rf) by heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.70 #3) id 0xL4Bw-0006T1-00; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:27:08 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:27:06 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Robin Fairbairns Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 14 Oct 1997 10:45:38 BST." <2749-Tue14Oct1997104538+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> Sebastian Rahtz writes, quoting Boris Veytsman: > > Actually BibTeX has a very subtle algorithm of dealing with author names; > > I think it is possible to reimplement it in TeX for journal styles. > > While I (sort of) admire BibTeX's system for second-guessing surnames, > I have always found it confusing as an author, and as a processor of > other peoples .bib files. [...] I wholeheartedly agree with Sebastian. In addition, I feel that the BibTeX algorithm is seriously slanted towards European languages (more precisely, languages whose impact was felt in the USA prints at the time BibTeX was being designed). I suspect it's inadequate to `world- wide publishing' -- is Oren listening to this list? -- or can someone else comment on whether the eagerly-awaited BibTeX v1.0 is going to extend the algorithm anywhere? Hans Aberg suggested: > This can be sorted out by ideas of object orientation: Class A uses local > names A/foo, and class B uses local names B/foo; thus they do not clash. And then shows how such a technique might be used. An interesting idea, but I can't convince myself that it's the `right' way forward. He asked: > I have done programming in this style. -- But I am not sure if TeX > getting slow by long names. I don't think that's an important issue at this stage -- and by the time a LaTeX3 is released we will (or ought to) be even less concerned about CPU cycles... Marcel Oliver said: > Is the APS involved in this discussion? Not so long ago they > used RevTeX which apparently has compatibility problems > with LaTeX (I don't have any personal experience). I > remember hearing that they were working on an update. I would hope that the APS _is_ at least monitoring the discussion, but if they are, I would suggest they're keeping remarkably quiet. However, being as how it's now more than two years since I was first told that a RevTeX2e was imminent, I've rather given up waiting for its actual appearance... Maybe they believe that the revtex.cls that Patrick Daly mentioned _is_ RevTeX2e? Robin 14-Oct-1997 12:06:27-GMT,4501;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA11289 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 06:06:23 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA25373; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 13:39:26 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 214864 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 13:39:24 +0200 Received: from pillar.elsevier.co.uk (root@pillar.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.222.35]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA25354 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 13:39:20 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from snowdon.elsevier.co.uk (snowdon.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.197.164]) by pillar.elsevier.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA18710 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 12:37:56 +0100 (BST) Received: from SRAHTZ (actually host srahtz.elsevier.co.uk) by snowdon.elsevier.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Tue, 14 Oct 1997 12:38:26 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <97100911582847@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> <199710132045.VAA09228@frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de> X-Mailer: VM 6.33 under Emacs 19.34.6 Message-ID: <1622-Tue14Oct1997113530+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:35:30 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Sebastian Rahtz Subject: frontmatter 98 To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <199710132045.VAA09228@frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de> If any part of fm98 (you see i use a new subject line, i propose we start referring to this new specification in that way) uses keyword=value, then we might as use it for *everything*. and it does get more and more like BibTeX (for good reason, bibliographies have had a lot of study). thus: \author{surname=Rahtz, inits=S., mainauthor=true, forename=Sebastian Patrick, qual=AJFL, title={}, address=add1, affiliation=aff1} \author{surname=Einstein, inits=A.,forename=Albert,title=Dr,address=add2} \author{forename=Maria de Dolores de Garcia,surname=de la Vega,inits=M.,title=Professor,address=add1, email=md@x.y.z} \address{name=add1,address={Le Petit Mignon, Despair Street, Ash Mountain}} \address{id=add2,address=Eternity} \affiliation{id=aff1,name=Devils Island} \date{revised=,accepted=...} \journalinfo{volume=33,issue=6,startpage=67,endpage=94, pii=xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx} (BTW I like the idea of the portable database fragment that we paste into our papers. if we want to get trendy, how about a short form of \author{url=http://x.y.z/~rahtz/artheader.cfg} or, perhaps more likely, if we have used BibTeX, \author{bibkey=rahtz:data} and store the fragment in the .bib file with the article.... ) Bothers ------ 1) Jean-Francois's point about using addresses for mailing. how about no more and no less than \address{name=add1,address={Le Petit Mignon,\\ Despair Street,\\ Ash Mountain}} where the class throws away the \\ if they are not appropriate? 2) multiple addresses and affiliations. how do i indicate that person A has address X, and person B address Y, but A is on study leave at Y? We don't want to repeat address Y, do we? do we simply add more and more keys to \author, to cover such situations? Summary ------- Assuming you buy a key-val interface, and accept that journals can and will use different extra keys in some fields, beyond the bare minimum required by the fm98 spec, then the question is how many top level commands there are. i have used above: \author \address \affiliation \journalinfo \date (the latter two could be combined together, actually; do we also combine affiliation and address?) but what else is there? Thinking of Barbara's post last week, where she listed the many tags the AMS apply to an article, the keyval approach has the great advantage that she need not commit herself immediately to what all those tags are Sebastian 14-Oct-1997 12:29:30-GMT,3034;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA11684 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 06:29:14 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA26660; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 13:59:43 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 214870 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 13:59:38 +0200 Received: from cc.vsu.ru (root@VSU-Relarn.Relarn.ru [194.226.29.62]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA26634 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 13:59:29 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by cc.vsu.ru (8.8.7-vsu/8.8.7/ai) with UUCP id PAA01924 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 15:53:35 +0400 Received: (from vvv@localhost) by vvv.vrn.ru (8.8.6/8.8.5) id PAA04233; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 15:48:03 +0400 References: Lines: 34 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.1 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 15:48:03 +0400 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Vladimir Volovich Subject: Re: LaTeX Syntax To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: Hans Aberg's message of Tue, 14 Oct 1997 12:05:57 +0200 "HA" == Hans Aberg writes: HA> Let me illustrate the problem: I use to write HA> \newcommand\foo{...} but the LaTeX syntax is (I think) HA> \newcommand{\foo}{...} A spellchecker I use would expect the HA> latter, and stop spellchecking entirely if it encounters the HA> former. Now, if the syntax is official, this is correct behavior, HA> but if it is unofficial (that is, something just used internally HA> by the LaTeX design team), it is incorrect. HA> In other words, the problem shows up in the interface between HA> LaTeX and other programs. There is a possibility to make TeX itself to `force' the users to insert `{' before the first argument of a macro: if the macro definition contains a `#' sign as a last character of parameter list, then TeX will insert `{' after a substitution list. E.g., the following (simplified) definition of \newcommand: \def\newcommand#{\@tempnewcommand} \def\@tempnewcommand#1{\def#1} will force to use the following syntax: \newcommand{\foo}{...} and will generate an error message if one writes \newcommand\foo{...} It should be possible to control the presence of {} brackets for other macro arguments as well (not only for the first one). -- With best regards, Vladimir. 14-Oct-1997 12:56:42-GMT,2942;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA12206 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 06:56:38 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA28723; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:28:47 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 214888 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:28:42 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA28704 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:28:36 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.124] (sl92.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.118]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id OAA19615 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:28:34 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se References: Your message of "Tue, 14 Oct 1997 10:45:38 BST." <2749-Tue14Oct1997104538+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:28:57 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: At 11:27 +0100 97/10/14, Robin Fairbairns wrote: >Hans Aberg suggested: > >> This can be sorted out by ideas of object orientation: Class A uses local >> names A/foo, and class B uses local names B/foo; thus they do not clash. > >And then shows how such a technique might be used. An interesting >idea, but I can't convince myself that it's the `right' way forward. The correct way to understand if various object oriented techniques and such are the right things, is to make a research prototype and then experiment with that: Such techniques are otherwise difficult to understand. One reason for this, is that it is about supplying structures that are not there before and which formally are not necessary. -- It is widely discussed why OOP is useful; one reason though is that it helps the handshaking between structures. I have not made my stuff public, but I may do that sometime in the future. Hans Aberg * Email: Hans Aberg * AMS member listing: 14-Oct-1997 13:09:14-GMT,2320;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA12433 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 07:09:02 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA28737; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:28:54 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 214891 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:28:52 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA28710 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:28:38 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.124] (sl92.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.118]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id OAA19624 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:28:36 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se References: Hans Aberg's message of Tue, 14 Oct 1997 12:05:57 +0200 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:25:54 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: Re: LaTeX Syntax To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: Vladimir Volovich : >There is a possibility to make TeX itself to `force' the users >to insert `{' before the first argument of a macro: This is interesting, but I do not think TeX has the capacity to check the whole LaTeX syntax. So the question is to decide if one wants an official LaTeX syntax or not. Hans Aberg * Email: Hans Aberg * AMS member listing: 14-Oct-1997 13:27:21-GMT,3393;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA12764 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 07:27:13 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA00580; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:55:29 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 214911 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:55:24 +0200 Received: from heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk (exim@heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.32.11]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA00541 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:55:17 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dorceus.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.1.34] (rf) by heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.70 #3) id 0xL6VE-0004cq-00; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 13:55:12 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 13:55:10 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Robin Fairbairns Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:28:57 +0200." Hans Aberg writes: > The correct way to understand if various object oriented techniques and > such are the right things, is to make a research prototype and then > experiment with that: Such techniques are otherwise difficult to > understand. What I said was, that Hans's proposal was interesting but that I hadn't concluded that it was the `right way forward'. I meant exactly what I said: I didn't mean I didn't understand it. I'm attracted by the constructs that David Carlisle produced in his frontmatter proposal, which addresses the problem in a slightly different way. David's proposal wins (IMHO) if we're not likely to run out of name space. If we are likely to run out of name space, Hans's proposal (which I would identify with @InCollection{saltzer:names, author = "Saltzer, J. H.", title = "Naming and {B}inding of {O}bjects\nocite{bayer:os-advanced}", crossref = "bayer:os-advanced", chapter = "3.A", pages = "100--208" } @Book{bayer:os-advanced, title = "Operating Systems: an Advanced Course", publisher = "Springer-Verlag", year = 1979, editor = "Bayer, R. and Graham, R. M. and Seegmuller, G.", volume = 60, series = "LNCS" } which is the classic naming paper) comes into its own. There is no problem in my mind with implementing Hans's suggestion (though I would be interested to see his implementation). There is a problem with knowing whether it's necessary. I believe it imposes an extra burden of understanding on the user (and hence of documentation on the implementor), so I don't want to rush into its use without being entirely sure that it's the right thing. Robin 14-Oct-1997 14:50:53-GMT,4589;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA14511 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 08:50:49 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA05529; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:08:19 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 214957 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:08:15 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA05510 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:08:08 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.124] (sl62.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.82]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id QAA28590 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:08:02 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se References: Your message of "Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:28:57 +0200." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:08:03 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: At 13:55 +0100 97/10/14, Robin Fairbairns wrote: >Hans Aberg writes: >> The correct way to understand if various object oriented techniques and >> such are the right things, is to make a research prototype and then >> experiment with that: Such techniques are otherwise difficult to >> understand. > >What I said was, that Hans's proposal was interesting but that I >hadn't concluded that it was the `right way forward'. I meant exactly >what I said: I didn't mean I didn't understand it. ... >There is a >problem with knowing whether it's necessary. I believe it imposes an >extra burden of understanding on the user (and hence of documentation >on the implementor), so I don't want to rush into its use without >being entirely sure that it's the right thing. Here we have the two OOP opposites at once: Even though it is not difficult to understand the logical implementation structure once it is done, it is still difficult to understand how to apply it, and figure out if it is useful. Then, the reason for this is that one is implementing structures from the real world which are not really needed for carrying out the computations, but is a way to organize the programming. >There is no problem in my mind with implementing Hans's suggestion >(though I would be interested to see his implementation). I do not know how to implement true OOP techniques in TeX (in view of those structural problems above). So it is great somebody else knows it. :-) > If we are likely to run out of name space, Hans's proposal >(which I would identify with > > @InCollection{saltzer:names, > author = "Saltzer, J. H.", > title = "Naming and {B}inding of >{O}bjects\nocite{bayer:os-advanced}", > crossref = "bayer:os-advanced", > chapter = "3.A", > pages = "100--208" > } >which is the classic naming paper) comes into its own. It's more than that, because in OOP, one could define "author" as a structure containing several substructures, such as "name". Then the structure "name", if it should be truly international could be highly complex, with substructures such as "given name", "family name", "nick name". When calling those substructures, one would normally not do it directly, but through method calls corresponding to name formats Albert Einstein Einstein, Albert and so on. The advantage is that the team making use of the "author" structure need not knowing the details of what the team designing the "name" structure is doing: So it is an advantage when the code evolves and becomes rich on structure. Hans Aberg * Email: Hans Aberg * AMS member listing: 14-Oct-1997 15:26:37-GMT,3808;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA15412 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 09:26:32 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA08054; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:42:26 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 214980 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:42:22 +0200 Received: from thphy.uni-duesseldorf.de (xerxes.thphy.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.64.10]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA08047 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:42:16 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from macbeth.uni-duesseldorf.de (macbeth.thphy.uni-duesseldorf.de) by thphy.uni-duesseldorf.de (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA00686; Tue, 14 Oct 97 15:42:56 +0100 Received: by macbeth.uni-duesseldorf.de (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA09578; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:41:29 +0200 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <199710141441.QAA09578@macbeth.uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:41:29 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Ulrik Vieth Subject: Re: frontmatter 98 To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <1622-Tue14Oct1997113530+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> (message from Sebastian Rahtz on Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:35:30 +0100) Sebastian writes: > \author{surname=Rahtz, inits=S., > mainauthor=true, > forename=Sebastian Patrick, > qual=AJFL, > title={}, > address=add1, affiliation=aff1} Nice idea, but what about journals that print initials withouth dots? In the IOP physics journal, they print author names like "T T C Jones", so if you say \author{surname=Jones, inits=T.T.C.}, your're already encoding some part of the presentation, not just the information. Some other \frontmatter problems that haven't been mentioned so far: * What about papers representing a team effort? In the proceedings issues of plasma physics journals you often find something like and the ITER Joint Central Team and Home Teams or even ITER Joint Central Team, presented by A. U. Thor Such papers, especially the latter kind, always cause headaches if you want to encode them in a BibTeX database, especially if some other journals prefer to cite such paper as A. U. Thor and ITER Joint Central Team to put the presenting author first regardless of the ordering in the original paper. * What about address records containing some sort of common element that should be placed as a footnote to several address blocks. For instance, given authors from three labs working in cooperation, \address{id=lab1,address=Forschungszentrum Juelich, Germany} \address{id=lab2,address=Ecole Royale Militaire, Belgium} \address{id=lab3,address=FOM Institut voor Plasmafysica, Netherlands} the official policy may ask for a footnote such as \note{id={lab1,lab2,lab3}, text={partners in the Trilaterial Euregio Cluster}} (This is indeed a real life example, not something that I've made up.) Just a reminder that there a still a number of extra complications waiting to be resolved in an all-encompassing fronmatter spec. Cheers, Ulrik. 14-Oct-1997 16:06:44-GMT,3285;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA16529 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 10:06:42 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA11254; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 17:26:00 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 215027 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 17:25:57 +0200 Received: from relay.Phys.UAlberta.CA (root@relay.phys.ualberta.ca [129.128.7.68]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA11241 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 17:25:53 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by relay.Phys.UAlberta.CA via suspension id <58219-1>; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 09:21:08 -0600 Received: from gortel.phys.ualberta.ca ([129.128.7.128]) by relay.Phys.UAlberta.CA with ESMTP id <58209-2>; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 09:00:51 -0600 Received: (from michal@localhost) by gortel.phys.ualberta.ca (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA12436; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 09:04:25 -0600 X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <199710141504.JAA12436@gortel.phys.ualberta.ca> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 09:04:25 -0600 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Michal Jaegermann Subject: Re: [markp@aps.org: Re: revtex] To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <97101411014709@linpwd.mpae.gwdg.de> from "P.W.Daly, MPAe, Lindau, Germany" at Oct 14, 97 11:01:47 am > > I recently discovered on the TeX-Live 2 CD-ROM a file revtex.cls. Hm. This is an original "temporary" version from 1994. It is a pity that it was not updated. The real trouble is that in that time a new revtex was supposed to show up Real Soon Now. > I append it here for your interest since it seems not to be well known. As it is "well known" for over two years now this still leaves some points open. Here is a slightly younger version (why it did not find its way onto TeX-Live 2 I have no idea): --mj % % revtex.cls, version 2, 24-JUL-1995 % % Temporary fix to RevTeX 3.0 package with LaTeX2e 1994/12/01, % by David Carlisle, 22 Dec 1994 % Added fix for `control sequences (.e.g. \dag) as biblabel' bug % (David Carlisle, Christian Spieler, 24 Jul 1995) % % \ifx\every@math@size\undefined\else \let\old@expast\@expast \def\@expast#1{\old@expast{#1}\let\@tempa\reserved@a} \fi \input{revtex.sty} \@ifundefined{@ExpandsToRefNumber}{\relax}% {% \def\@ExpandsToRefNumber #1{% TT\fi % \@ifundefined{b@#1}% {\@tempcntb=1 }% {\protected@edef\@tempb{\csname b@#1\endcsname}% \def\@tempa{\@temptokena=\bgroup}% \if0A { \else \fi % \afterassignment\@tempa \@tempcntb=0\@tempb}% }% \ifnum\@tempcntb>0 % }% } \endinput % end of revtex.cls 14-Oct-1997 16:29:16-GMT,4038;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA17055 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 10:29:15 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA12915; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 17:55:36 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 215038 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 17:55:32 +0200 Received: from pillar.elsevier.co.uk (root@pillar.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.222.35]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA12903 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 17:55:20 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from snowdon.elsevier.co.uk (snowdon.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.197.164]) by pillar.elsevier.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA29937 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:53:58 +0100 (BST) Received: from SRAHTZ (actually host srahtz.elsevier.co.uk) by snowdon.elsevier.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:54:29 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <1622-Tue14Oct1997113530+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> <199710141441.QAA09578@macbeth.uni-duesseldorf.de> X-Mailer: VM 6.33 under Emacs 19.34.6 Message-ID: <9620-Tue14Oct1997161506+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:15:06 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Sebastian Rahtz Subject: Re: frontmatter 98 To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <199710141441.QAA09578@macbeth.uni-duesseldorf.de> > Nice idea, but what about journals that print initials withouth dots? > In the IOP physics journal, they print author names like "T T C Jones", > so if you say \author{surname=Jones, inits=T.T.C.}, your're already > encoding some part of the presentation, not just the information. sigh. troublemaker. "inits=t t c", and journal B can cycle over the elements adding dots? > * What about papers representing a team effort? In the proceedings > issues of plasma physics journals you often find something like > > and the ITER Joint Central Team and Home Teams \author{type=collab, name=The ITER Team} or \collab{name=The ITER Team} > ITER Joint Central Team, presented by A. U. Thor um. tricky one. our DTD has a tag for this. i am tempted to say \author{type=presenter,surname=Thor,forename=A U} > A. U. Thor and ITER Joint Central Team > > to put the presenting author first regardless of the ordering > in the original paper. ah, now ordering of authors is hard... i am assuming natural order, if in doubt. we didnt promise to generate a BibTeX heade from the frontmatter > \address{id=lab1,address=Forschungszentrum Juelich, Germany} > \address{id=lab2,address=Ecole Royale Militaire, Belgium} > \address{id=lab3,address=FOM Institut voor Plasmafysica, Netherlands} > > the official policy may ask for a footnote such as > > \note{id={lab1,lab2,lab3}, > text={partners in the Trilaterial Euregio Cluster}} well, you solved it yourself. there comes a point where you have to giev up and use a \note, perhaps. > (This is indeed a real life example, not something that I've made up.) oh, i believe you. i bet the wretches publish with Elsevier.... another one i am not happy about is shared departments: A U THor Dept Chemistry B L User Dept Physics University of Noddyland i really dont see a clean markup for this sebastian 14-Oct-1997 17:47:43-GMT,5111;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA19083 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:47:41 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA16739; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 18:58:23 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 215099 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 18:58:19 +0200 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (punt-2d.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA16723 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 18:58:12 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dcarlisle.demon.co.uk ([194.222.187.145]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0628449; 14 Oct 97 17:25 BST Received: by dcarlisle.demon.co.uk id m0xL76z-000OWXC (Debian Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #2); Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:34:13 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:34:13 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: David Carlisle Subject: Re: frontmatter 98 To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <1622-Tue14Oct1997113530+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> (message from Sebastian Rahtz on Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:35:30 +0100) Sebastian > If any part of fm98 ... uses keyword=value, then we might as use it > for *everything*. Well I agree with that (and probably agree with using that kind of syntax in general) but I think that in the *everything* I quote above you meant `everything in the front matter'. One reason I didn't use KV in the fmatter package I sketched before was the belief that if you can pursuade authors that they should use \author{MothersMaidenName=Willingham,forename=David, MiddleNameButIDontUseItMuch=Paul,surname=Carlisle} then they might want to start using \section{level=C,tocheading=this,runninghead=that,maintitle=the other} or 1001 other possible extensions. In that case the project is no longer about coming up with a frontmatter specification but re-writing the whole of latex to use named arguments. That isn't a bad idea, but it's probably a different project, one in fact that is not totally unrelated to this list... In a similar vein > the keyval approach has the great > advantage that she need not commit herself immediately to what all > those tags are You don't have to use KV to get that. Using the undef.sty package I posted, the fmatter classes can define any new command. Any class that does not define that command will skip past the undefined command (and any {} or [] arguments) with just a warning message, no error generated). However to assume (for now) we go with a keyvalue syntax, you say > We don't want to repeat address Y, do we? If this was only aimed at TeX there would be an obvious solution since TeX has quite a powerful macro facility built in: \newcommand\addrone{a\\long\\full\postal\\address} \author{name=Me, address=\addrone} \author{name=You, address=\addrone} If you allow TeX expansion on the key values, then you can have any amount of saving of keystrokes without the frontmatter system building in an explicit cross referencing scheme. Possibly though you would want to discourage the use of such general macro definitions in the front matter and restrict the possibilities, either so the frontmatter could be viewed as a general database markup without running it through TeX, or because you just want to easily check the author isn't doing anything too horrible (\renewcommand\section......). In that case some (all?) keys would need some cross referencing scheme as you sketched. > do we simply add more and > more keys to \author, to cover such situations? I don't think you can catch all uses. You will need some kind of generic `note' key analogous to the dreaded \thanks. If every class comes up with a new specific key for special combinations of temporary address then it will once again become hard to share documents between journal classes. For most purposes it would be sufficient to have a `temporary address' key with some kind of attatched note to say `study leave' or `on a visiting KJFJD fellowship' or whatever. If one class defines a new key for `addresses of KJFD visitors' then other class files are not even going to recognise that as an address at all, and will have to just ignore it. Whereas a general address key with an attatched note is more useable. This is assuming you are trying to make documents out of this. If you want to do a database lookup to find all KJFD scholars over the past decade then having a key for it would help, rather. David 15-Oct-1997 21:40:43-GMT,2510;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA06753 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:40:41 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA20127; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 23:21:58 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 216001 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 23:21:55 +0200 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA20117 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 23:21:53 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dcarlisle.demon.co.uk ([194.222.187.145]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2026042; 15 Oct 97 22:06 BST Received: by dcarlisle.demon.co.uk id m0xLabF-000OWYC (Debian Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #2); Wed, 15 Oct 1997 22:03:25 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 22:03:25 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: David Carlisle Subject: Re: Possible bug in LaTeX 2e amsmath package To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <876943448.58106.BNB@MATH.AMS.ORG> (message from bbeeton on Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:24:08 -0400) Barbara, > here's what it says in the file technote.tex that's distributed with the > ams-latex collection. > ... > Users have proposed two workarounds (September 1996): > .... Both of those workarounds always looked odd to me, as as far as I can see the code goes to some lengths to make the following construction work, but then doesn't tell anyone about it. The same thing works for essentially the same reasons in the verbatim and tabularx package environments, those package document this though. David \documentclass[]{article} \usepackage[]{amsmath} \newenvironment{fancyequation} {\hrule \equation} {\endequation\hrule} \begin{document} \begin{fancyequation} a = b \end{fancyequation} \end{document} 13-Oct-1997 23:37:07-GMT,7715;000000000401 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA27639 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:37:06 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id BAA27970; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 01:10:36 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 214667 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 01:10:32 +0200 Received: from coreserver.core.ucl.ac.be (coreserver.core.ucl.ac.be [130.104.4.39]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA27963 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 01:10:28 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from core.ucl.ac.be ([130.104.121.63]) by coreserver.core.ucl.ac.be (Netscape Mail Server v2.0) with ESMTP id AAA239 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 01:11:32 +0200 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <876403665.25745.BNB@MATH.AMS.ORG> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de id BAA27964 Message-ID: <3442B721.DE972392@core.ucl.ac.be> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 01:04:54 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: MERTENS Jean-Francois Organization: CORE, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Universit=E9?= Catholique de Louvain Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Reactions to P. Helbig's suggestion are well summarized in bbeeton's reply, and in H. Aberg's comments on the name issue. I would just like to stress a bit more this last issue, and first to raise 3 other points: 1) Concerning classification numbers: I tend to give in preprints classification numbers according to several different schemes _ say AMS and Journal of Economic Literature, and sometimes in addition IAOR an OR/MS _ while the journal where I finally send it may retain only a subset of it (but many do print several). I think this rather customary and might become even more so in any somewhat cross-disciplinary field. Now this can only be done by visual formatting. Doing better might require some encoding of the more usual schemes _ since typically every journal wants to typeset the names of the schemes it uses in a different way. 2) Concerning address-data: some journals may feel that the use of address-data is to enable readers to write to the authors, so the address-field has to contain all information needed to write a proper envelope: this means in particular a) the line-breaks (which get lost e.g. in the output of amsart), b) the address has to be written in the language of the destination country (with possibly adding in parentheses the translation of the country-name in the language of the paper), and c) the first line has to be there too, and cannot be taken simply from the name-field, due to the widely different habits in different countries on this point, which some journals may want to respect ( think of the pre-pending of "Herr Professor Doctor Ing." or other "Excellentissimo"'s). 3) The proposed grouping of the information is a major pain in the neck for authors: if all data were grouped by author _ i.e. all data of author 1, followed by all those of author 2, etc. _, authors would just have to make once and for all a personal-data file (like latexbug.cfg _ thanks!), and in each paper one would just have to input those files for the different co-authors. Clearly this will in some cases require more work from the class-file, to test say whether some affiliations are common between some of the co-authors, but this seems a price well worth to pay _ and co-authors from the same institution can be instructed by a journal to take care to fill in their common fields identically (or by a common macro). 4) Concerning names: it are clearly not only Chinese names (or south-indian, or from other far-away places) that have a completely different STRUCTURE than the US one. Just as to surnames already, I get that in Spain typically an individual's surname has his wife's maiden-name after his own _ so is no longer a "family-name" (in the sense of being the same as for his brothers). But the "given" (or: "preferred") name would typically be just the first part. In Portugal on the contrary, (part of) the mother's name would be pre-pended to () the father's name in naming the children _ and the "given" (or: "preferred") name would be some final part. Even here, a colleague of mine has "d'Aspremont-Lynden" as surname (so Bibtex misses the "von" part, because of the absence of a space), but the "given" name would be just "d'Aspremont" (so even a hyphen doesn't mean the 2 parts have to be treated equally _ the name could equally plausibly have been "Lynden-d'Aspremont", with "Lynden" as "given" name.). And for complete names, something like "Maria de Dolores de Garcia de la Vega" would be a quite plausible Spanish name (with similar examples in several other languages), but with 3 "von" parts, of which it is the SECOND that separates first and last name... And the textbook example of "de La Vallee Poussin" signs some of his books with "Charles-J." as first name (so nothing like Charles Louis ...), while his "given" first name was just "Charles": so this is a case where a hyphen between the 2 first names does NOT mean they are a single "given" name and should be treated equally. In summary, I think there is no hope to parse complete names correctly, and one has to ask for the individual name-components. Further, it seems to me that for each of those components one has to ask the full form (if only just for database use: it seems ridiculous to refer in databases with different names to the same individual, so this probably means in practice one has to use there the full form, as in the Library of Congress cards), and the "given"- or "preferred" form (if only for uses like headers) (reduction to initials can well be handled automatically _ cf. e.g. BibTeX _, so no need to bother authors with that). As to those components, we need concepts that are as widely meaningful as possible _ to avoid "visual markup" _, and I have no precise idea what those might be... I heard that Patashnik is working hard on BibTeX 1.00; and he must have given serious thought to this question. Since in addition there may be obvious advantages in coordinating this question with BibTeX, one should probably ask his opinion. PS. It also seems to me it would be quite useful for such a project from people in other disciplines (most of this mailing-list seems to have more of a "hard-sciences" background ?), like law, classic philology, etc. They may have different viewpoints, that might enrich and improve the final product even for our own purposes. -- Jean-François Mertens. J.F. Mertens, [ Tel: 32-10-474309, e-mail: jfm@core.ucl.ac.be] CORE, [ 32-10-474321, Fax: 32-10-474301, corsec@core.ucl.ac.be] 34, Voie du Roman Pays, B-1348, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium. Home: Tel. 32-2-6521970 2, Rue de Limalsart, B-1330, Rixensart, Belgium. 14-Oct-1997 10:09:15-GMT,4360;000000000401 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA09459 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 04:09:11 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA18126; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:50:46 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 214927 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:50:42 +0200 Received: from pillar.elsevier.co.uk (root@pillar.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.222.35]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA18105 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:50:36 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from snowdon.elsevier.co.uk (snowdon.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.197.164]) by pillar.elsevier.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA14499 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 10:49:35 +0100 (BST) Received: from SRAHTZ (actually host srahtz.elsevier.co.uk) by snowdon.elsevier.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Tue, 14 Oct 1997 10:49:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <199710132045.VAA09228@frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de> X-Mailer: VM 6.33 under Emacs 19.34.6 Message-ID: <2749-Tue14Oct1997104538+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 10:45:38 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Sebastian Rahtz Subject: Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: > Maybe BibTeX-like syntax will work, i.e. something like \author{Albert > Einstein} and \author{Einstein, Albert} would produce same output > determined *only* by house class? Then house classes could process > \author declarations and extract, if required, both Albert Einstein in > title page and A.~Einstein in the running head? > > Actually BibTeX has a very subtle algorithm of dealing with author names; > I think it is possible to reimplement it in TeX for journal styles. While I (sort of) admire BibTeX's system for second-guessing surnames, I have always found it confusing as an author, and as a processor of other peoples .bib files. I think a clean separation into surname and other bits is better. That does not mean you cannot give a simple case like \author{name=Sebastian Rahtz} and have it parsed easily by TeX as if you had typed \author{surname=Rahtz, forenames=Sebastian Patrick Quintus} [1] but it goes further than that, doesn't it. some styles will need to suppress that to S.P.Q., others want the full name. you cannot always work out that initial compression easily, by the way - people called Christian sometimes like to be be abbreviated Chr. and where do i put my qualifications? \author{surname=Rahtz, forenames=Sebastian Patrick Quintus,title=Mr, qualification="AJFL"} [2] can that be done as ? \author{name={Mr Sebastian Rahtz, AJFL}} not easily, because you have to implement *masses* of bibtex functionality! One approach would be to use BibTeX itself to do the parsing, if you want something complicated - the production style could write the key values out to a .bib file and call up BibTeX with a special style. well, thats up to the implementor of the production class. my (unhappy) proposal would be that we allow a full form, and a short form. the `correct' form is to put: \author{surname=Rahtz, forenames=Sebastian Patrick Quintus,title=Mr, qualification="AJFL", initials=S.P.Q.} [2] (incidentally, the Elsevier SGML DTD allows even more than this); but in a simple case \author{name=Sebastian Rahtz, AJFL} will also work. then the production class has to do some hard work. Sebastian [1] just for those of you who ask me occasionally [2] a prize if you can guess the meaning 15-Oct-1997 18:51:55-GMT,3601;000000000001 Received: from plot79.math.utah.edu (beebe@plot79.math.utah.edu [128.110.198.3]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA01090; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 12:51:54 -0600 (MDT) From: "Nelson H. F. Beebe" Received: (from beebe@localhost) by plot79.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA28793; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 12:51:53 -0600 (MDT) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 12:51:53 -0600 (MDT) To: latex-l@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de Cc: beebe@math.utah.edu, charris@math.utah.edu X-US-Mail: "Center for Scientific Computing, University of Utah, 155 S 1400 E RM 233, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0090, USA" X-Telephone: +1 801 581 5254 X-FAX: +1 801 581 4148 X-URL: http://www.math.utah.edu/~beebe Subject: Possible bug in LaTeX 2e amsmath package Message-ID: Consider the following simple file: % -*-latex-*- % Document name: /tmp/foo.ltx % Creator: Nelson H. F. Beebe [beebe@plot79.math.utah.edu] % Creation Date: Wed Oct 15 12:13:15 1997 \documentclass[]{article} \documentclass[]{article} \usepackage[]{amsmath} \newenvironment{fancyequation} {\hrule \begin{equation}} {\end{equation}\hrule} \begin{document} \begin{fancyequation} a = b \end{fancyequation} \end{document} When I run it on my local TeX system, or on the TeXlive one, I get an error: $ /cdrom/texlive/bin/sparc-solaris2.5/latex foo.ltx This is TeX, Version 3.14159 (Web2c 7.0) (foo.ltx LaTeX2e <1996/12/01> patch level 1 Babel and hyphenation patterns for american, english, french, dutch, ge rman, loaded. (/cdrom/texlive/share/texmf/tex/latex/base/article.cls Document Class: article 1996/10/31 v1.3u Standard LaTeX document class (/cdrom/texlive/share/texmf/tex/latex/base/size10.clo)) (/cdrom/texlive/share/texmf/tex/latex/amslatex/amsmath.sty (/cdrom/texlive/share/texmf/tex/latex/amslatex/amstext.sty (/cdrom/texlive/share/texmf/tex/latex/amslatex/amsgen.sty)) (/cdrom/texlive/share/texmf/tex/latex/amslatex/amsbsy.sty) (/cdrom/texlive/share/texmf/tex/latex/amslatex/amsopn.sty)) (foo.aux) Runaway argument? ! Paragraph ended before \equation was complete. \par l.18 If I comment out the \usepackage command, it works as expected: $ /cdrom/texlive/bin/sparc-solaris2.5/latex foo.ltx This is TeX, Version 3.14159 (Web2c 7.0) (foo.ltx LaTeX2e <1996/12/01> patch level 1 Babel and hyphenation patterns for american, english, french, dutch, ge rman, loaded. (/cdrom/texlive/share/texmf/tex/latex/base/article.cls Document Class: article 1996/10/31 v1.3u Standard LaTeX document class (/cdrom/texlive/share/texmf/tex/latex/base/size10.clo)) (foo.aux) [1] (foo.aux) ) Output written on foo.dvi (1 page, 312 bytes). Transcript written on foo.log. Is this exposing a bug in the implementation of \end{equation} in the amsmath package? Ordinarily, there should be no problem in using an \end{environment} inside the definition of another macro. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Nelson H. F. Beebe Tel: +1 801 581 5254 - - Center for Scientific Computing FAX: +1 801 581 4148 - - University of Utah Internet e-mail: beebe@math.utah.edu - - Department of Mathematics, 105 JWB beebe@acm.org - - 155 S 1400 E RM 233 beebe@ieee.org - - Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0090, USA URL: http://www.math.utah.edu/~beebe - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15-Oct-1997 19:48:44-GMT,3699;000000000401 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA03835 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 13:48:42 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA16698; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 21:24:19 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 215938 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 21:24:15 +0200 Received: from math.ams.org (math.ams.org [130.44.210.14]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA16687 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 21:24:09 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from axp14.ams.org by math.ams.org via smtpd (for relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) with SMTP; 15 Oct 1997 19:24:09 UT Received: from AXP14.AMS.ORG by AXP14.AMS.ORG (PMDF V5.1-8 #1) id <01IOU8YBDUM8000R0O@AXP14.AMS.ORG> for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:24:08 EST MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Mail-system-version: Message-ID: <876943448.58106.BNB@MATH.AMS.ORG> Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:24:08 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: bbeeton Subject: Re: Possible bug in LaTeX 2e amsmath package To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: nelson beebe has asked about a problem that arose when he tried this with amsmath: \newenvironment{fancyequation} {\hrule \begin{equation}} {\end{equation}\hrule} sorry, nelson -- that's a feature, not a bug. here's what it says in the file technote.tex that's distributed with the ams-latex collection. \section{Why can't I use abbreviations for the \env{equation} environment?} Many users have discovered to their dismay that when switching from ordinary \latex/ to the \pkg{amsmath} package, they are no longer able to use abbreviations such as |\beq| |\eeq| for |\begin{equation}| |\end{equation}|. This has to do with unfortunately nontrivial technical complications: the environments such as \env{align} must read their contents as a delimited macro argument because they do multipass processing of the contents using algorithms inherited from Spivak's \fn{amstex.tex}. The obvious solution---substitution of different algorithms that do box shuffling instead of token shuffling for the multipass calculations---would require rewriting these display environments from the ground up; while that is a worthy goal, it was beyond the original scope of the \amslatex/ project. Some progress has in fact been made on such a solution [time of writing: January 1995], but not yet to the point of being ready for release. Users have proposed two workarounds (September 1996): \begin{itemize} \item |\def\beq#1\eeq{\begin{equation}#1\end{equation}}| (Donald Arseneau) \item Define |\newcommand{\env}[2]{\begin{#1}#2\end{#1}}| and then use |\env{equation}{...}| (Michael Skeide) \end{itemize} -------------------- this may change in the future, but i'm not going to hold *my* breath. -- bb 16-Oct-1997 18:07:00-GMT,2528;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA02286 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 12:06:58 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA10443; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 19:38:02 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 216529 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 19:37:57 +0200 Received: from multivac (multivac.jb.man.ac.uk [130.88.24.128]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA10424 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 19:37:54 +0200 (MET DST) X-VMS-To: SMTP%"LATEX-L@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de" X-VMS-Cc: HELBIG Message-ID: <97101618334115@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 18:33:41 GMT Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Phillip Helbig Subject: Re: frontmatter 98 To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Just to organise the discussion a bit, perhaps it should proceed in 5 steps (perhaps partially simultaneously): 1. Agree on WHAT INFORMATION needs to be provided 2. Agree on HOW IT SHOULD BE DIVIDED UP (all information about one author grouped together, all addresses together, leave both possibilities open,...) 3. Agree on a SYNTAX (keywords or not,...) and requirements on how they are to be interpreted by various .cls (unused things must be understood but annoyed,...) 4. Additional items: should `unwanted' commands be redefined to give error messages (to prevent the author attempting visual formatting, for example, or using \thanks,...),... 5. Implementing all of this -- Phillip Helbig Email ... helbig@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories Tel. ..... +44 1477 571 321 (ext. 297) Jodrell Bank Fax ................. +44 1477 571 618 Macclesfield Telex ................. 36149 JODREL G UK-Cheshire SK11 9DL Web .... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pjh/ 20-Oct-1997 6:52:37-GMT,3153;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA27585 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 00:52:33 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA09690; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 08:12:56 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 218157 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 08:12:51 +0200 Received: from acs-mail.bu.edu (root@ACS-MAIL.BU.EDU [128.197.153.100]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA09669 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 08:12:48 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from aleph.swift.xxx (PPP-96-12.BU.EDU [128.197.9.208]) by acs-mail.bu.edu (8.8.5/BU_Server-1.3) with ESMTP id CAA72188 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 02:12:26 -0400 Received: from aleph (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aleph.swift.xxx (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA28440 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 02:12:44 -0400 X-Emacs: Emacs 20.2, MULE 3.0 (MOMIJINOGA) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI MIME-Edit 0.92 - "Oyanagi") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de id IAA09670 Message-ID: <199710200612.CAA28440@aleph.swift.xxx> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 02:12:44 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Matthew Swift Subject: Re: Extended include To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 07 Oct 1997 20:22:32 BST." <199710071922.UAA00483@frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de> >>>>> "F" == Frank Mittelbach writes: F> in fact for some prototype kernel (long time ago) i implemented F> a scheme that always used two aux files: one to read from and F> one to write to. the advantage was that a) less files and b) F> much better control in error situations, ie in case your run F> ended in the middle LaTeX would not use the file that was only F> partly written but the one that was fully written last time. Frank, would you describe the basic flowchart of this idea? I would like to implement it in my experimental include system. If your two aux filenames are A and B, during the first run you read >From A and write to B. Presuming no errors, during your next run however you need to read from B and write to A. How do you keep track? I'm sure I could arrive at a solution, but if you did this before and had it working, you maybe solved some other problems I would have to re-solve. 20-Oct-1997 12:02:17-GMT,1861;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA02808 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 06:02:13 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA28375; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 13:05:49 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 218337 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 13:05:43 +0200 Received: from vms.rhbnc.ac.uk (alpha1.rhbnc.ac.uk [134.219.201.113]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA28359 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 13:05:35 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <971020120514.a6ec@vms.rhbnc.ac.uk> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 12:05:13 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: "Philip Taylor (RHBNC)" Subject: von v. van der To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L >> In the current scheme, there are four name parts, with three allowed >> input syntaxes: >> >> first von last >> von last, first >> von last, jr, first The input syntax may not be a reliable indicator for my quesstion, but in typesetting "The Principles of Nutritional Assessment" (Rosalind S Gibson, OUP, 1990: 0-19-5-5838-0) we were instructed to typeset J C van der Auwera as Auwera JC van der Is this requirement met by the current scheme? Philip Taylor, RHBNC. 20-Oct-1997 12:31:05-GMT,3065;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA03355 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 06:30:58 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA00601; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 13:34:24 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 218353 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 13:34:18 +0200 Received: from ecu.econ.vu.nl (ecu.econ.vu.nl [130.37.52.3]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA00555; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 13:34:10 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by ecu.econ.vu.nl; Mon, 20 Oct 97 13:40:15 -0100 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 13:40:14 MET Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Maarten Gelderman Subject: Re: von v. van der To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L On Monday, October 20, 1997 at 10:05:13 am MET, "Philip Taylor (RHBNC)" wrote: >>> In the current scheme, there are four name parts, with three allowed >>> input syntaxes: >>> >>> first von last >>> von last, first >>> von last, jr, first > >The input syntax may not be a reliable indicator for my quesstion, but >in typesetting "The Principles of Nutritional Assessment" (Rosalind S >Gibson, OUP, 1990: 0-19-5-5838-0) we were instructed to typeset > > J C van der Auwera > > as > > Auwera JC van der > >Is this requirement met by the current scheme? > The `van' problem can never be countered by a computer program, unless you specify the language with each author name. Americans generally treat the van part as a part of their last name. In dutch van etc are not used to put items in alphabetical order. (J.C. van der Auwera literally means JC of the Auwera). Furthermore there are some problems with capitalization. Belgiums always capitalize the first of the in-between-words. In Dutch the rules are more complicated. If the first name or the initial of someone is present, you write Jan van der Meulen or J. van der Meulen or J. v.d. Meulen or J. v/d Meulen (all versions are right, they do not depend on the name of the person involved). If the first name is not present you write: Van der Meulen. Maarten ========================================================================== Maarten Gelderman email: mgelderman@econ.vu.nl Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam phone: +31 20 444 6073 De Boelelaan 1105 room 3a-36 fax +31 20 444 6005 NL-1081 HV AMSTERDAM The Netherlands 20-Oct-1997 14:32:46-GMT,2664;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA05885 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 08:32:31 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA11654; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 15:53:35 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 218453 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 15:53:30 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA11623 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 15:53:26 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.46] (sl93.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.119]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id PAA17952 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 15:53:24 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 15:53:12 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: Re: von v. van der To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: Maarten Gelderman : >The `van' problem can never be countered by a computer program, >unless you specify the language with each author name. Americans >generally treat the van part as a part of their last name. In dutch >van etc are not used to put items in alphabetical order... May I point out that there is a difference in displaying the author name and the way a name should be sorted in an index: An author would expect their name to be displayed as they are used to, normally as that of their own language, whereas in an index, the best way is to sort is according to the rules of the language of the readership (so the readership is "English" if the publication is in English"). (Because otherwise it can be difficult to find someone in the index.) Hans Aberg * Email: Hans Aberg * AMS member listing: 20-Oct-1997 14:54:04-GMT,3460;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA06457 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 08:54:01 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA12723; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:07:42 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 218469 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:07:37 +0200 Received: from ecu.econ.vu.nl (ecu.econ.vu.nl [130.37.52.3]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA12701 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:07:33 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by ecu.econ.vu.nl; Mon, 20 Oct 97 16:13:54 -0100 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:13:53 MET Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Maarten Gelderman Subject: Re: von v. van der To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L On Monday, October 20, 1997 at 12:53:12 pm MET, Hans Aberg wrote: >Maarten Gelderman : >>The `van' problem can never be countered by a computer program, >>unless you specify the language with each author name. Americans >>generally treat the van part as a part of their last name. In dutch >>van etc are not used to put items in alphabetical order... > > May I point out that there is a difference in displaying the author name >and the way a name should be sorted in an index: > > An author would expect their name to be displayed as they are used to, >normally as that of their own language, whereas in an index, the best way >is to sort is according to the rules of the language of the readership (so >the readership is "English" if the publication is in English"). (Because >otherwise it can be difficult to find someone in the index.) > I immediately admit that the outline of my previous message was far from good. However, I dear question whether it is advisablwe to follow the `English' rules in this case. Imagine a book on French literature in which all authors whose names start with `de' or `de la' are underneath `de' in the index. I would not label that convenient. One encounters even more problems in situations where the word-in-between is not really a part of the name, like in von Beethoven, where the von is kind of equivalent to the English `lord' (it also means `of' but if I do not err, Beethoven was not a von Beethoven all of his life). I would prefer to find him underneath B. However, I have to admit that this is at least partly a matter of personal taste (or editorial policy). Maarten ========================================================================== Maarten Gelderman email: mgelderman@econ.vu.nl Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam phone: +31 20 444 6073 De Boelelaan 1105 room 3a-36 fax +31 20 444 6005 NL-1081 HV AMSTERDAM The Netherlands 20-Oct-1997 15:48:19-GMT,2711;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA07852 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 09:48:15 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA17545; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 17:01:55 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 218549 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 17:01:50 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA17520 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 17:01:47 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.82] (sl62.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.82]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id RAA23912 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 17:01:42 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se (Unverified) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 17:02:16 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: \@ifdefinable To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Should not \@ifdefinable be changed so that it does not check \@ifundefined? This will make the implementation of different defining command simpler and clearer. (As I would rather not get into the LaTeX trickery of temporarily canceling \@ifundefined in \@ifdefinable, I would prefer making my own version of \@ifdefinable which do not check \@ifundefined.) I get the following variations; all should check \@ifdefinable without \@ifundefined, but differ in the other respects: define new If undefined, then define, else error. renew If defined, then define, else error. provide If undefined, then define, else do nothing. override If define, then define, else do nothing. (I do not want to go much into the context, but the problem shows up when trying to do new variations of \newcommand, \newenvironment, \newobject, etc.) Hans Aberg * Email: Hans Aberg * AMS member listing: 20-Oct-1997 16:01:13-GMT,3282;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA08197 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 10:01:11 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA18374; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 17:12:49 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 218574 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 17:12:45 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA18354 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 17:12:43 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.82] (sl88.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.114]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id RAA25006 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 17:12:41 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de id RAA18355 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 17:13:11 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: Re: von v. van der To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: Maarten Gelderman : >I immediately admit that the outline of my previous message was far from >good. However, I dear question whether it is advisablwe to follow the >`English' rules in this case. Imagine a book on French literature in which >all authors whose names start with `de' or `de la' are underneath `de' in the >index. I would not label that convenient. One encounters even more problems >in situations where the word-in-between is not really a part of the name, >like in von Beethoven, where the von is kind of equivalent to the English >`lord' (it also means `of' but if I do not err, Beethoven was not a von >Beethoven all of his life). I would prefer to find him underneath B. There appears to be a mixture of rules in use. Otherwise, I had in my mind the index cards of a libarary: A Swedish amthematician named Hörmander might be sorted under Hoermander in some English libraries, which is more difficult to find than Hormander (because the translation ö -> oe is not common in Sweden). If you sort according to the wishes of the author, some names "von Foo" will be sorted as "von Foo" (resp. "de Bar"), others as "Foo, von" (resp. "Bar, de"), and so on. If the index is large, this is not very convenient. Hans Aberg * Email: Hans Aberg * AMS member listing: 20-Oct-1997 17:30:33-GMT,3374;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA10619 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 11:30:31 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA26701; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 18:56:57 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 218646 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 18:56:52 +0200 Received: from acs-mail.bu.edu (root@ACS-MAIL.BU.EDU [128.197.153.100]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA26687 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 18:56:47 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from aleph.swift.xxx (PPP-94-27.BU.EDU [128.197.9.151]) by acs-mail.bu.edu (8.8.5/BU_Server-1.3) with ESMTP id MAA120234 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 12:56:19 -0400 Received: from aleph (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aleph.swift.xxx (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA00992 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 12:56:39 -0400 X-Emacs: Emacs 20.2, MULE 3.0 (MOMIJINOGA) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI MIME-Edit 0.92 - "Oyanagi") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Message-ID: <199710201656.MAA00992@aleph.swift.xxx> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 12:56:39 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Matthew Swift Subject: Re: \@ifdefinable To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 20 Oct 1997 17:02:16 +0200." > I get the following variations; all should check \@ifdefinable without > \@ifundefined, but differ in the other respects: > define > new If undefined, then define, else error. > renew If defined, then define, else error. > provide If undefined, then define, else do nothing. > override If define, then define, else do nothing. I don't have an opinion on cleaning up the internals of \@ifdefinable; I have been able to write a large number of defining commands without running into any problems in this regard (the moredefs package). But I would add the following to your list. The first is already in the kernel, the second is in moredefs: check Compare given with existing definition; warn if not identical. require If undefined, define, else check. When considering new defining commands, there are also (at least) four Boolean variations: 1) "robust" or not "robust" 2) \long or not \long 3) \global or not \global 4) advanced syntax that lets you compute the macro name and/or write a complex parameter specification. I've organized and normalized some new defining commands to a small extent in moredefs, but certainly not with the completeness and efficiency that might be achieved by starting from scratch. 20-Oct-1997 18:14:12-GMT,2987;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA11704 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 12:14:11 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA29873; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 19:50:00 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 218677 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 19:49:53 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA29850 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 19:49:46 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.82] (sl01.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.21]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id TAA07097 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 19:49:41 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se References: Your message of "Mon, 20 Oct 1997 17:02:16 +0200." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 19:30:59 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: Re: \@ifdefinable To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <199710201656.MAA00992@aleph.swift.xxx> At 12:56 -0400 97/10/20, Matthew Swift wrote: >I don't have an opinion on cleaning up the internals of \@ifdefinable; >I have been able to write a large number of defining commands without >running into any problems in this regard (the moredefs package). I just want to clean up the logic, so it is cleaner when starting doing more complicated things (such as implementing "object"): When defining a new command one wants to ensure first that it does not conflict with the LaTeX internals, which seems to be what the \@ifdefinable should be, and then you may have additional wishes, such as \@ifundefined. > 4) advanced syntax that lets you compute the macro name and/or write a > complex parameter specification. Isn't this just the usual (in-reality-not-so-advanced) TeX parameter definitions you are thinking of here? I think the LaTeX parameter style \newcommand[6]... is pointless. Should it not be scrapped in LaTeX3, only be allowed in compatibility mode? Hans Aberg * Email: Hans Aberg * AMS member listing: 20-Oct-1997 18:47:58-GMT,3384;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA12545 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 12:47:57 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA02307; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 20:25:57 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 218776 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 20:25:52 +0200 Received: from kralle.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (kralle.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.8.158]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA02286 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 20:25:45 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from Ufrank@localhost) by kralle.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA15416 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 20:25:47 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kralle.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE: Ufrank set sender to latex3 using -f Received: (from latex3@localhost) by frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de (8.6.9/8.6.9) id UAA17653; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 20:09:58 +0100 References: <971020150418.a6ec@vms.rhbnc.ac.uk> Message-ID: <199710201909.UAA17653@frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 20:09:58 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Frank Mittelbach Subject: Re: Extended include To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <971020150418.a6ec@vms.rhbnc.ac.uk> Philip Taylor writes: > >> If your two aux filenames are A and B, during the first run you read > >> From A and write to B. Presuming no errors, during your next run > >> however you need to read from B and write to A. How do you keep > >> track? > > No idea how Frank does it, but at successful completion I close A and B, > open B for input and A for output, and copy B to A in a robust environment > (sorry, not the LaTeX sense of "robust" but then I don't speak LaTeX!). > > It _can_ go wrong during the copy, but only in the event of a machine failure > or running out of disc space, provided that the environment is sufficiently > robust. Since the final record copied can be (e.g.) "%! TeX copy complete", > one can always search for this on re-opening to ensure that the file is valid. that is more or less what i did implement as well if i remember correctly. my idea was to provide for doing the copying within LaTeX (the slow but portable variant) but also allow to set things up that the copying is done by some OS script wrapper outside LaTeX instead. i don't really think it is worth checking for diskfull problems as you get some "can't rwrite on file xyz" error at the end of your previous run anyway, but yes you could test for this. but if you do i would set a tex executable flag at the end rather than trying to match some string (also you would need to allow for the case when there is no previous aux file at all, but this is all solvable) frank 20-Oct-1997 18:57:57-GMT,3276;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA12843 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 12:57:55 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA03002; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 20:35:56 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 218821 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 20:35:53 +0200 Received: from multivac (multivac.jb.man.ac.uk [130.88.24.128]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA02986 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 20:35:51 +0200 (MET DST) X-VMS-To: SMTP%"LATEX-L@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de" X-VMS-Cc: HELBIG Message-ID: <97102019261585@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 19:26:15 GMT Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Phillip Helbig Subject: \@ifdefinable and journal macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L > I get the following variations; all should check \@ifdefinable without > \@ifundefined, but differ in the other respects: > define > new If undefined, then define, else error. > renew If defined, then define, else error. > provide If undefined, then define, else do nothing. > override If define, then define, else do nothing. > > (I do not want to go much into the context, but the problem shows up when > trying to do new variations of \newcommand, \newenvironment, \newobject, > etc.) \providecommand was a big improvement in LaTeX2e when one is writing mutually compatible macro packages. The stuff mentioned above is of course relevant to the idea of standard journal macros, redefinable by various .cls, able to harmonise with personal macros etc. There is another possibility: cancel If defined, then undefine, else do nothing Which might be useful to cancel (and provoke an error message) for certain commands. To use a journal macros front matter example, something like \cancelcommand{\thanks} might be useful :) Also, something like this could be useful force If undefined, then define, else override and provide warning Back to journal macros, they could ALL be of the form \forcecommand, assuming that they were processed after an author's personal commands. A warning would be nice. -- Phillip Helbig Email ... helbig@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories Tel. ..... +44 1477 571 321 (ext. 297) Jodrell Bank Fax ................. +44 1477 571 618 Macclesfield Telex ................. 36149 JODREL G UK-Cheshire SK11 9DL Web .... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pjh/ My opinions are not necessarily those of NRAL or the University of Manchester. 20-Oct-1997 19:05:48-GMT,3152;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA13029 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 13:05:46 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA03472; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 20:45:02 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 218834 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 20:44:56 +0200 Received: from multivac (multivac.jb.man.ac.uk [130.88.24.128]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA03451 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 20:44:50 +0200 (MET DST) X-VMS-To: SMTP%"LATEX-L@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de" X-VMS-Cc: HELBIG Message-ID: <97102019391902@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 19:39:19 GMT Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Phillip Helbig Subject: Re: von v. van der To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Maarten Gelderman : Otherwise, I had in my mind the index cards of a libarary: A Swedish amthematician named Hvrmander might be sorted under Hoermander in some English libraries, which is more difficult to find than Hormander (because the translation v -> oe is not common in Sweden). ^ This is something which needs to be considered. There are many ways to treat things like v (this is the same as the letter marked above if it gets garbled by some email software along the way). o treat it as a separate letter (in Swedish it's the last letter of the alphabet) o treat it as o (common practice in English, mixing it with things really written with o) o treat it as oe, mixing it with things REALLY written with oe (this is done in German telephone books) o put it immediately before o o put it immediately after o o put it immediately before oe o put it immediately after oe I've definitely seen the first three in use. The rest are thinkable. In German, sometimes (such as in address books, file collections etc) Th, Ph, Chr, Sch, St etc, either as the beginnings of words or as initials of names (one sees both), are treated as essentially separate letters, usually coming after the first letter of the group (corresponding to example 5 above). -- Phillip Helbig Email ... helbig@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories Tel. ..... +44 1477 571 321 (ext. 297) Jodrell Bank Fax ................. +44 1477 571 618 Macclesfield Telex ................. 36149 JODREL G UK-Cheshire SK11 9DL Web .... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pjh/ 20-Oct-1997 19:55:35-GMT,2425;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA14130 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 13:55:33 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA05446; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 21:30:10 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 218869 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 21:30:04 +0200 Received: from multivac (multivac.jb.man.ac.uk [130.88.24.128]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA05422 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 21:29:55 +0200 (MET DST) X-VMS-To: SMTP%"LATEX-L@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de" X-VMS-Cc: HELBIG Message-ID: <97102020294845@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 20:29:48 GMT Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Phillip Helbig Subject: Re: von v. van der To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L > like in von Beethoven, where the von is kind of equivalent to the English > `lord' (it also means `of' but if I do not err, Beethoven was not a von > Beethoven all of his life). I would prefer to find him underneath B. I believe it was actually `Ludwig van Beethoven' even though he was German, not Dutch. The German `von' is the normal word for `of' or `from' and carries aristocratic connotations in a name, just as `Reginald of Kent' does and Reginald Kent does not, especially if it is `Graf von' (`Count of') or something similar. -- Phillip Helbig Email ... helbig@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories Tel. ..... +44 1477 571 321 (ext. 297) Jodrell Bank Fax ................. +44 1477 571 618 Macclesfield Telex ................. 36149 JODREL G UK-Cheshire SK11 9DL Web .... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pjh/ My opinions are not necessarily those of NRAL or the University of Manchester. 20-Oct-1997 23:09:34-GMT,3520;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA19188 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 17:09:33 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id AAA11500; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 00:38:58 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 218996 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 00:38:54 +0200 Received: from acs-mail.bu.edu (root@ACS-MAIL.BU.EDU [128.197.153.100]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA11488 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 00:38:50 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from aleph.swift.xxx (PPP-86-15.BU.EDU [128.197.8.195]) by acs-mail.bu.edu (8.8.5/BU_Server-1.3) with ESMTP id SAA117800 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 18:38:27 -0400 Received: from aleph (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aleph.swift.xxx (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA19878 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 18:38:47 -0400 X-Emacs: Emacs 20.2, MULE 3.0 (MOMIJINOGA) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI MIME-Edit 0.92 - "Oyanagi") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Message-ID: <199710202238.SAA19878@aleph.swift.xxx> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 18:38:46 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Matthew Swift Subject: Re: \@ifdefinable To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 20 Oct 1997 19:30:59 +0200." >>>>> "H" == Hans Aberg writes: >> 4) advanced syntax that lets you compute the macro name and/or >> write a complex parameter specification. H> Isn't this just the usual (in-reality-not-so-advanced) TeX H> parameter definitions you are thinking of here? H> I think the LaTeX parameter style \newcommand[6]... is H> pointless. Should it not be scrapped in LaTeX3, only be allowed H> in compatibility mode? If you are going to reengineer the whole system of defining commands in LaTeX, then a fortiori you are going to redefine \@ifdefinable. If anyone does this, I think it makes sense to continue to permit one or more abbreviated forms of defining commands in the present manner: a form for simple arguments; a form that accommodates common optional arguments; and a form with full generality -- at least these forms. TeX macro parameters and their TeX syntax may be "in-reality-not-so-advanced" to multi-year veterans of TeX such as Hans and myself, but the easier it is for all users to BOTH WRITE and READ defining commands, the better for everyone. The current system of permitting the majority of definitions to be written in a simple form is the right idea. Imagine if every definition were as hard to read as this one from the kernel: \long\def\@tf@r#1#2\do#3{\def\@fortmp{#2}\ifx\@fortmp\space\else \@tforloop#2\@nil\@nil\@@#1{#3}\fi} ...or another macro I use has that has a full 32 #'s in front of it. 21-Oct-1997 2:49:03-GMT,4077;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA23669 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 20:49:01 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id EAA15083; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 04:25:51 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 219037 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 04:25:47 +0200 Received: from math.ams.org (math.ams.org [130.44.210.14]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id EAA15073 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 04:25:40 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from axp14.ams.org by math.ams.org via smtpd (for relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) with SMTP; 21 Oct 1997 02:25:38 UT Received: from epsilon.ams.org by AXP14.AMS.ORG (PMDF V5.1-8 #1) with SMTP id <01IP1NV2LRI8000RQ6@AXP14.AMS.ORG> for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 22:25:37 EST Received: by epsilon.ams.org; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/12Oct95-1155AM) id AA18697; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 22:25:37 -0400 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Lines: 48 References: <971020150418.a6ec@vms.rhbnc.ac.uk> <199710201909.UAA17653@frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de> Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 22:25:36 -0400 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Michael John Downes Subject: Re: Extended include To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: Frank Mittelbach's message of Mon, 20 Oct 1997 20:09:58 +0100 Philip Taylor writes: > > No idea how Frank does it, but at successful completion I close A and B, > > open B for input and A for output, and copy B to A in a robust environment > > (sorry, not the LaTeX sense of "robust" but then I don't speak LaTeX!). To which Frank Mittelbach replies: > that is more or less what i did implement as well if i remember > correctly. my idea was to provide for doing the copying within LaTeX > (the slow but portable variant) but also allow to set things up that > the copying is done by some OS script wrapper outside LaTeX instead. How about seeking to avoid the copying altogether? According to a small experiment I just did it seems it might be possible to do this, with a slight cost: using three extensions aux, auy, auz instead of just two. (But in the case of a book with multiple \include statements the subordinate files never use the .aux extension; only \jobname.au[xyz] uses all three.) Don't know if I've overlooked some critical impediment, but the method I tried was \jobname.aux contains only one line: \auxselect{y}{...}% first arg is y or z \jobname.auy, \jobname.auz: alternate output streams for aux data At end-document: ---If a complete .auy file was successfully written, write \auxselect{y}{...} to the \jobname.aux. ---If a complete .auz file was successfully written, write \auxselect{z}{...} to the \jobname.aux. If \enddocument is not executed (probably the LaTeX run ended prematurely with an error), \jobname.aux will automatically be left in its previous state, so that the next LaTeX run will again select the last complete (set of) auxiliary file(s). As for the second arg of \auxselect, I thought it would be useful to write there something to indicate whether any aux data changed (meaning another run is necessary). Then external OS scripts that want to test whether another run is necessary could look only at the first line of the .aux file instead of diffing .auy and .auz (maybe a bit of a pain for a multi-\include document). Michael Downes, mjd@ams.org 21-Oct-1997 10:12:18-GMT,3299;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA02000 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 04:12:16 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA02745; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 11:30:49 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 219309 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 11:30:45 +0200 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA02726 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 11:30:44 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.71] (sl51.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.71]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id LAA29321 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 11:30:42 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se References: Your message of "Mon, 20 Oct 1997 19:30:59 +0200." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 10:41:42 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: Re: \@ifdefinable To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <199710202238.SAA19878@aleph.swift.xxx> Matthew Swift : >TeX macro parameters and their TeX syntax may be >"in-reality-not-so-advanced" to multi-year veterans of TeX... It was not really intended as polemics, but we have discussed syntaxes going beyond that of standard TeX parameters, both such that depend on extensions of TeX itself and can be programmed within TeX. For example, I suggested a variation \define?c1{def1}% ?c2{def2}% ... {defn} That in succession checks the character chi within the parameter text pari, and if there is a match, it expands to defi, otherwise it tries the next pattern. This can be implemented in TeX with under some condition, which I do not know if it is prudent to assume. So I would suggest a terminology, "standard TeX definitions" for the TeX style definitions, and perhaps "standard LaTeX definition" for the LaTeX \newfoo[7]... style definitions. -- Otherwise I think it is clear that an user interface should hide away the technical stuff, but I do not feel it is difficult for me to write say \define#1#2#3{...} instead of \define[3]{...} Perhaps the latter is easier for casual users. But not being allowed to use parameter texts in LaTeX definitions kills off some of the creativity possible with TeX. Hans Aberg * Email: Hans Aberg * AMS member listing: 21-Oct-1997 10:36:56-GMT,2726;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA02394 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 04:36:50 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA05039; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 12:02:12 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 219363 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 12:02:09 +0200 Received: from ecu.econ.vu.nl (ecu.econ.vu.nl [130.37.52.3]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA05025 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 12:02:07 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by ecu.econ.vu.nl; Tue, 21 Oct 97 12:08:25 -0100 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 12:08:24 MET Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Maarten Gelderman Subject: Re: von v. van der To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L On Monday, October 20, 1997 at 7:29:48 pm MET, Phillip Helbig wrote: >> like in von Beethoven, where the von is kind of equivalent to the English >> `lord' (it also means `of' but if I do not err, Beethoven was not a von >> Beethoven all of his life). I would prefer to find him underneath B. > >I believe it was actually `Ludwig van Beethoven' even though he was >German, not Dutch. > >The German `von' is the normal word for `of' or `from' and carries >aristocratic connotations in a name, just as `Reginald of Kent' does and >Reginald Kent does not, especially if it is `Graf von' (`Count of') or >something similar. > You are right. I always thought Beethoven was knighted at some moment in his life, but I looked it up in the encyclopedia and it turned out that Van Beethoven is a Flemmish (Belgium) family name. So, if my Belgium friends are right, we should write Ludwig Van Beethoven. Maarten ========================================================================== Maarten Gelderman email: mgelderman@econ.vu.nl Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam phone: +31 20 444 6073 De Boelelaan 1105 room 3a-36 fax +31 20 444 6005 NL-1081 HV AMSTERDAM The Netherlands 21-Oct-1997 11:09:39-GMT,4881;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA02944 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 05:09:35 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA06901; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 12:26:17 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 219406 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 12:26:13 +0200 Received: from ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (root@termalt1.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.231]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA06882 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 12:26:11 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from sponsor.iti.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de by ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03termalt1) id AA285452; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 12:27:03 +0200 Received: (from kehr@localhost) by sponsor.iti.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de (8.8.4/8.8.5) id MAA05364; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 12:26:11 +0200 (MET DST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: VM 6.32 under 19.15p5 XEmacs Lucid Message-ID: <199710211026.MAA05364@sponsor.iti.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 12:26:11 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Roger Kehr Subject: Re: von v. van der & other problems To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Phillip Helbig writes: > Maarten Gelderman : > > This is something which needs to be considered. There are many ways to > treat things like v (this is the same as the letter marked above if it > gets garbled by some email software along the way). > > o treat it as a separate letter (in Swedish it's the last letter of > the alphabet) > > o treat it as o (common practice in English, mixing it with things > really written with o) > > o treat it as oe, mixing it with things REALLY written with oe > (this is done in German telephone books) > > o put it immediately before o > > o put it immediately after o > > o put it immediately before oe > > o put it immediately after oe > > I've definitely seen the first three in use. The rest are thinkable. In > German, sometimes (such as in address books, file collections etc) Th, > Ph, Chr, Sch, St etc, either as the beginnings of words or as initials > of names (one sees both), are treated as essentially separate letters, > usually coming after the first letter of the group (corresponding to > example 5 above). The problem with these is that in German there are surnames are M\"uller as well as Mueller. Hence, both styles are possible. In this case there is still no exact order defined for both entries which might confuse the reader if several people have names like these, especially in telephone books with dozens of entries. Then we need a rule that says: 1. Phase: Treat all \"o's as if they were oe's. 2. Phase: Put all "\o's in front of oe (or vice versa). Hence, specifying rules like this is not trivial. The French sorting rules for example as well require more than one sorting phase, due to the fact that at first diacritical marks are not considered, so e and \'e are equal in a first phase. If then there are words left such as cote, cot\'e the diacritical marks define the exact order, but lexicographically from right to left. This is rather complicated to implement. I have done some work on the xindy index processor that to a large extend offers mechanisms to solve these problems. The current implementation uses a string rewriting mechanism that operates in several stages. And what I learned from that project is that it requires a lot of effort to obtain a complete and consistent specification of sorting rules. There exists an ISO Standard "ISO/IEC CD 14651 - International String Ordering - Method for comparing Character Strings and Description of a Default Tailorable Ordering" about his topic. But it does not offer solutions for the PhD. stuff Maarten mentioned above. I hope I haven't frustrated you. Cheers --Roger P.S: The ISO standard is available at http://www.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC22/WG20. -- ====================================================================== Roger Kehr kehr@iti.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de Computer Science Department Darmstadt University of Technology 21-Oct-1997 18:20:21-GMT,3178;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA12437 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 12:20:19 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA13205; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 19:54:02 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 219896 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 19:53:59 +0200 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA13183 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 19:53:55 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dcarlisle.demon.co.uk ([194.222.187.145]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1013515; 21 Oct 97 18:44 BST Received: by dcarlisle.demon.co.uk id m0xNgTB-000OXrC (Debian Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #2); Tue, 21 Oct 1997 16:43:45 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 16:43:45 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: David Carlisle Subject: Re: \@ifdefinable To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: (message from Hans Aberg on Mon, 20 Oct 1997 19:30:59 +0200) Hans writes. I think the LaTeX parameter style \newcommand[6]... is pointless. Should it not be scrapped in LaTeX3, only be allowed in compatibility mode? You need to differentiate between commands aimed at document use, and general latex programmers interface. In documents, not allowing arbitrary argument syntax is one of the great strengths of LaTeX. It is one of the things that allows latex documents to be parsed by non-tex engines such as latex2html, techexplorer, Scientific Word etc. Figuring out the argument to \vspace is a whole lot easier than figuring out the argument to \vskip. Of course at a programming level one needs to use arbitrary TeX delimited arguments, eg for parsing comma separated lists, or key value pairs or whatever. However one could imagine a sufficiently rich `programmers interface' which gave access to such constructs without needing to do the most basic TeX macro expansion tricks that you unfortunately need to do to code things for the present system. To answer the original question > Should not \@ifdefinable be changed so that it does not check > \@ifundefined? No. Changing the semantics of a command used in a large proportion of latex packages is not a very safe thing to do. Your analysis of the possibilities for defining/testing commands sounds reasonable, but any implementation of such a thing should use new names and keep clear of the old (existing) interface. David 21-Oct-1997 22:15:29-GMT,3574;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA18578 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 16:15:28 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA23498; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 23:48:07 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 220024 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 23:48:04 +0200 Received: from kralle.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (kralle.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.8.158]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA23486 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 23:48:03 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from Ufrank@localhost) by kralle.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.8.5/8.8.5) id XAA18168 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 23:48:04 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kralle.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE: Ufrank set sender to latex3 using -f Received: (from latex3@localhost) by frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de (8.6.9/8.6.9) id WAA00423; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 22:38:10 +0100 References: <971020150418.a6ec@vms.rhbnc.ac.uk> <199710201909.UAA17653@frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de> Message-ID: <199710212138.WAA00423@frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 22:38:10 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Frank Mittelbach Subject: Re: Extended include To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: Michael John Downes writes: > How about seeking to avoid the copying altogether? According to a small > experiment I just did it seems it might be possible to do this, with a > slight cost: using three extensions aux, auy, auz instead of just two. > (But in the case of a book with multiple \include statements the > subordinate files never use the .aux extension; only \jobname.au[xyz] > uses all three.) i think that Michael's idea is most likely working and it certainly has the advantage of avoiding a slow copy step (if that step is done by TeX). his mail also reminded me that i forgot to mention that, of course, you have compare both aux files before that copy step, line by line up to the point where you notice they differ. Again a slow operation if done by TeX and again that can be moved to some operating script to speed things up. instead of executing the the aux file at the end (as currently done by LaTeX) to write the .toc type files and test for changes in labels a full comparison has the advantage that it also detects changes in something like the toc or in the index or whatever if you keep everything in the same aux file up to that point. > another run is necessary). Then external OS scripts that want to test > whether another run is necessary could look only at the first line of > the .aux file instead of diffing .auy and .auz (maybe a bit of a pain > for a multi-\include document). i don't see much problem checking for changed data at os level as we have only two files to compare independent of the number of includes. frank 20-Oct-1997 14:56:04-GMT,2107;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA06499 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 08:56:03 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA12482; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:04:23 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 218465 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:04:19 +0200 Received: from vms.rhbnc.ac.uk (alpha1.rhbnc.ac.uk [134.219.201.113]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA12465 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:04:16 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <971020150418.a6ec@vms.rhbnc.ac.uk> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 15:04:18 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: "Philip Taylor (RHBNC)" Subject: Re: Extended include To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L >> If your two aux filenames are A and B, during the first run you read >> From A and write to B. Presuming no errors, during your next run >> however you need to read from B and write to A. How do you keep >> track? No idea how Frank does it, but at successful completion I close A and B, open B for input and A for output, and copy B to A in a robust environment (sorry, not the LaTeX sense of "robust" but then I don't speak LaTeX!). It _can_ go wrong during the copy, but only in the event of a machine failure or running out of disc space, provided that the environment is sufficiently robust. Since the final record copied can be (e.g.) "%! TeX copy complete", one can always search for this on re-opening to ensure that the file is valid. ** Phil. 22-Oct-1997 10:17:46-GMT,3940;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA02687 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 04:17:44 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA14973; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 11:48:29 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 220375 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 11:48:25 +0200 Received: from insanus.matematik.su.se (root@insanus.matematik.su.se [130.237.198.12]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA14949 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 11:48:21 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.76] (sl101.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.127]) by insanus.matematik.su.se (8.8.7/8.6.9) with ESMTP id KAA18638 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 10:48:17 +0100 (MET) X-Address: Department of Mathematics, Stockholm University S-106 91 Stockholm SWEDEN X-Phone: int+46 8 162000 X-Fax: int+46 8 6126717 X-Url: http://www.matematik.su.se X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se References: (message from Hans Aberg on Mon, 20 Oct 1997 19:30:59 +0200) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 11:44:19 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: LaTeX Syntax (Was: \@ifdefinable) To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: >Hans writes. > I think the LaTeX parameter style \newcommand[6]... is pointless. Should > it not be scrapped in LaTeX3, only be allowed in compatibility mode? > >You need to differentiate between commands aimed at document use, and >general latex programmers interface. > >In documents, not allowing arbitrary argument syntax is one of the >great strengths of LaTeX. It is one of the things that allows latex >documents to be parsed by non-tex engines such as latex2html, >techexplorer, Scientific Word etc. Figuring out the argument to >\vspace is a whole lot easier than figuring out the argument to >\vskip. > >Of course at a programming level one needs to use arbitrary TeX >delimited arguments, eg for parsing comma separated lists, or key >value pairs or whatever. However one could imagine a sufficiently rich >`programmers interface' which gave access to such constructs without >needing to do the most basic TeX macro expansion tricks that you >unfortunately need to do to code things for the present system. This makes only sense if the syntax LaTeX is published and official, and not only used as an internal guiding line for LaTeX developers. Nut this relates to a discussion we had before here, about improved syntax for math writing: I really think that a better syntax would help mathematical authoring. I use it myself. For example, one can use name overloading, so that $\Obj(C)$ may mean the objects in the category C (which also selects the appropriate style for C), whereas $\Obj$ would just be the symbol used to denote objects, used in indices, and so on. So now you are saying that tools that are supposed to simplify LaTeX authoring, in fact may make it more difficult... Hans Aberg * Email: Hans Aberg * AMS member listing: 22-Oct-1997 10:19:24-GMT,2995;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA02747 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 04:19:23 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA15091; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 11:49:52 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 220379 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 11:49:49 +0200 Received: from insanus.matematik.su.se (root@insanus.matematik.su.se [130.237.198.12]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA14967 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 11:48:28 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [130.237.37.76] (sl101.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.127]) by insanus.matematik.su.se (8.8.7/8.6.9) with ESMTP id KAA18641 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 10:48:20 +0100 (MET) X-Address: Department of Mathematics, Stockholm University S-106 91 Stockholm SWEDEN X-Phone: int+46 8 162000 X-Fax: int+46 8 6126717 X-Url: http://www.matematik.su.se X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se References: (message from Hans Aberg on Mon, 20 Oct 1997 19:30:59 +0200) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 11:30:38 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: Re: \@ifdefinable To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: At 16:43 +0100 97/10/21, David Carlisle wrote: >To answer the original question > >> Should not \@ifdefinable be changed so that it does not check >> \@ifundefined? > >No. Changing the semantics of a command used in a large proportion >of latex packages is not a very safe thing to do. > >Your analysis of the possibilities for defining/testing commands >sounds reasonable, but any implementation of such a thing should >use new names and keep clear of the old (existing) interface. Well, I figured this was a problem, too, and wanted to mainly discuss the semantics involved, not the particular naming, which is subordinate to that. But if there are other such somewhat messy internals in LaTeX needed to be straighten out, I think one should do this in the LaTeX3 project. Hans Aberg * Email: Hans Aberg * AMS member listing: 22-Oct-1997 17:56:29-GMT,5109;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA12137 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 11:56:27 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA19430; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 19:38:59 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 220875 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 19:38:55 +0200 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA19420 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 19:38:53 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dcarlisle.demon.co.uk ([194.222.187.145]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1022556; 22 Oct 97 17:30 BST Received: by dcarlisle.demon.co.uk id m0xNyXq-000OXrC (Debian Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #2); Wed, 22 Oct 1997 12:01:46 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 12:01:46 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: David Carlisle Subject: Re: LaTeX Syntax (Was: \@ifdefinable) To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: (message from Hans Aberg on Wed, 22 Oct 1997 11:44:19 +0200) > This makes only sense if the syntax LaTeX is published and official, and > not only used as an internal guiding line for LaTeX developers. For L2, the syntax for `document authoring' is more or less published and official, namely mandatory arguments in {}, optional arguments in [], option lists comma separated and environments in \begin\end. (With a note in Leslie's book somewhere to the effect that experts may sometimes abbreviate a single token mandatory argument by missing off the {}). The syntax and structure of the programmers interface in L2 is, as you know, rather less clear. 2e tried at least to document some explicit interfaces such as the package/option handling stuff and the font declarations, and also converted all the source code comments to `doc' format. (But as much of that conversion was automatic from the original ascii comments, it is not always beautiful or as well structured as you might hope). In a new system one would hope to do rather better and document the structure and syntax of all the programmers commands, and give guidelines so people know what syntax conventions to follow for new commands. ie people don't have to read through 550 pages of source2e.dvi to discover the for-loop \@for, (and to discover it has a strange `:=' separated argument structure quite unlike the rest of latex) However it really is only feasable to do that for a completely new system. If you build on the current system (as we did for 2.09 -> 2e) then you gain in keeping existing users more or less happy, but you lose by keeping a large quantity of basically undocumentable coding conventions that have built up over time. > I really think that a better syntax would help mathematical authoring. I > use it myself. For example, one can use name overloading, You can, but as I say that makes it difficult (perhaps) to convert the source to something else. A common requirement these days is to take latex math markup and try to force it into some other system, maybe MathML or some other web math DTD, or a symbolic algebra package such as mathematica or maple etc. If latex package authors add () delimited arguments, or other variations then it makes such uses increasingly difficult. Of course a specific extension to support ( ) delimited arguments could probably be easily accommodated, what is harder is to support arbitrary argument syntax, in the style of \def\foo#1[#2\par#3#{} so having some command defining mechanism, more general than \newcommand but more restrictive than \def may be a good thing. > So now you are saying that tools that are supposed to simplify LaTeX > authoring, in fact may make it more difficult... That is of course a fact of life:-) but the systems I am thinking about are not primarily for *authoring* latex (gnu emacs being the one true authoring system). They are *consumers* of latex. SW will parse a latex math expression written `by hand' and pass it to maple to be evaluated, but you need to give it a chance by not making arbitrary syntax changes. I am not saying that such systems have total control over latex development, but I think that any discussion of syntax proposals needs to bear in mind such issues as conversion to other formats, not just be viewed as a matter of convenience for author markup for the `traditional' edit->tex->preview->print cycle. David 18-Oct-1997 4:27:37-GMT,16251;000000000001 Received: from plot79.math.utah.edu (beebe@plot79.math.utah.edu [128.110.198.3]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA06713; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 22:27:36 -0600 (MDT) From: "Nelson H. F. Beebe" Received: (from beebe@localhost) by plot79.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA20087; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 22:27:35 -0600 (MDT) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 22:27:35 -0600 (MDT) To: latex-l@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de Cc: beebe@math.utah.edu X-US-Mail: "Center for Scientific Computing, University of Utah, 155 S 1400 E RM 233, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0090, USA" X-Telephone: +1 801 581 5254 X-FAX: +1 801 581 4148 X-URL: http://www.math.utah.edu/~beebe Subject: [Oren Patashnik : Re: [MERTENS Jean-Francois : Re: LaTeX journal and publisher macros]] Message-ID: Folks, here is some extensive commentary from Oren Patashnik on the BibTeX personal name handling topic. As he requests, please communicate further with him OFF the latex-l list if you wish to pursue the discussion: --------------- Date: Fri, 17 Oct 97 00:38:50 PDT From: Oren Patashnik ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I have been forwarded from the LaTeX-L list some comments regarding name structure and BibTeX. Here are my comments. (I don't read LaTeX-L, so if you want to send me comments, please email me directly. Thanks.) Also, I apologize in advance for any faulty assumptions I've made due to my jumping into the middle of the discussion. JFM = Jean-Frangois Mertens SR = Sebastian Rahtz BV = Boris Veytsman RF = Robin Fairbairns JFM> 4) Concerning names: it are clearly not only Chinese names (or JFM> south-indian, or from other far-away places) that have a completely JFM> different STRUCTURE than the US one. JFM> Just as to surnames already, I get that in Spain typically an JFM> individual's surname has his wife's maiden-name after his own _ so is JFM> no longer a "family-name" (in the sense of being the same as for his JFM> brothers). But the "given" (or: "preferred") name would typically be JFM> just the first part. In Portugal on the contrary, (part of) the JFM> mother's name would be pre-pended to () the father's name in naming JFM> the children _ and the "given" (or: "preferred") name would be some JFM> final part. Even here, a colleague of mine has "d'Aspremont-Lynden" as JFM> surname (so Bibtex misses the "von" part, because of the absence of a JFM> space), but the "given" name would be just "d'Aspremont" (so even a JFM> hyphen doesn't mean the 2 parts have to be treated equally _ the name JFM> could equally plausibly have been "Lynden-d'Aspremont", with "Lynden" JFM> as "given" name.). With the current BibTeX (0.99), there are four "parts" to a name (first, von, last, jr); each part consists of zero or more tokens, and tokens are separated by either whitespace *or* hyphens. (For this discussion, I'll use the terms `surname' and `family name' synonymously; the purpose of having `von' and `last' parts is to break the surname into a primary and a secondary part, for the styles that want to treat the primary and secondary tokens differently.) For the current BibTeX, I had considered making the apostrophe, too, a token separator, but I decided not to do that, because I saw too many published examples that seemed to not treat, for example, "d'" as a `von' token in the same way that they treated "de" as a `von' token. But I now think that that decision was a mistake, and my current plans are to make the apostrophe a token separator in BibTeX 1.0. Thus, if you have author = "Jean le Rond d'Alembert", styles that use the ordering `last, first von' will render this name as Alembert, Jean le Rond d' for BibTeX 1.0. By the way, with "d'Aspremont-Lynden" the current BibTeX treats d'Asperemont as a `von' token and Lynden as a `last' token. (This is different from what JFM claims above---perhaps he was thinking of a different way in which the current BibTeX mishandles this name.) Anyway, anyone who wants to know exactly how BibTeX parses a name can read the bibtex.web source code, or (easier) can ask me for a simple name-parts.bst I wrote, which tells you precisely the four parts of a specified name. (This will all be documented explicitly for 1.0.) JFM> And for complete names, something like "Maria de Dolores de Garcia JFM> de la Vega" would be a quite plausible Spanish name (with similar JFM> examples in several other languages), but with 3 "von" parts, of which JFM> it is the SECOND that separates first and last name... And the JFM> textbook example of "de La Vallee Poussin" signs some of his books JFM> with "Charles-J." as first name (so nothing like Charles Louis ...), JFM> while his "given" first name was just "Charles": so this is a case JFM> where a hyphen between the 2 first names does NOT mean they are a JFM> single "given" name and should be treated equally. With author = "Maria de Dolores de Garcia de la Vega", the current BibTeX uses, and BibTeX 1.0 will use, these parts: first: Maria von: de Dolores de Garcia de la last: Vega If there's a bibliography style that will produce incorrect formatting (incorrect with respect to that style) with this division of tokens, then this name must be entered with the one-comma syntax to get BibTeX to parse it differently. More on this shortly. As for de la Vall/'ee Poussin, the person (Charles Louis ...) that appears in the "BibTeXing" document, DEK tells me, is the father of the more famous de la Vall\'ee Poussin---the one who was a co-prover in 1896 of the Prime Number Theorem--- Charles-Jean-Gustave-Nicolas de la Vall\'ee Poussin (father and son were at the same university, which is apparently why DEK got them confused in the index of volume 2, second edition). So Charles Louis and and Charles-J. are two different people. In any case, as I mentioned earlier, BibTeX treats a hyphen as a token separator, hence a BibTeX style may, if it wants, treat the two tokens differently. JFM> In summary, I think there is no hope to parse complete names JFM> correctly, and one has to ask for the individual name-components. If I understand this correctly, I think I disagree. It seems to me that the problem is not in parsing the names into parts (for example, BibTeX's comma syntax can, unambiguously, parse a name into different parts), but rather the problem is in assigning meaning to those parts. Different languages and different cultures have different name structures. I think it's probably a mistake to assign a *fixed* meaning to name components, because for some cultures those components won't adequately handle its name structure. (It's true that, in some sense, BibTeX's first-von-last-jr structure is fixed, but that's only because of how the current standard styles interpret the four parts; it's certainly possible to have other styles interpret those parts differently. More on this in a bit.) JFM> Further, it seems to me that for each of those components one has JFM> to ask the full form (if only just for database use: it seems JFM> ridiculous to refer in databases with different names to the same JFM> individual, so this probably means in practice one has to use there JFM> the full form, as in the Library of Congress cards), and the "given"- JFM> or "preferred" form (if only for uses like headers) (reduction to JFM> initials can well be handled automatically _ cf. e.g. BibTeX _, so no JFM> need to bother authors with that). I'm not sure what's the intended use of the database mentioned here, but in general it seems to me that you really have to think hard about the intended uses. For example, a Library-of-Congress-type database may want to use the name, say, for two purposes, which may require both an author's full name as well as an author's name the way it appears in the work itself. For these two purposes, using BibTeX at least, it probably suffices to enter the name just once, in a form like name = "Donald E[rvin] Knuth", indicating that "Donald Ervin Knuth" is the full name but "Donald E. Knuth" is the way it appeared in the work itself. But you need some abbreviation markup mechanism (here, the square brackets), because for the two purposes above it's insufficient to do the abbreviation automatically---for example you can't tell from just the full name name = "Donald Ervin Knuth", (without the square brackets) how it appeared in the work itself. On the other hand, I can think of databases for which you want to make three uses of a name---for example, an author's full name for an index; the name of the author as he prefers it; and the name of the author as it appeared in some work, say because some overbearing journal editor butchered it by automatically abbreviating "Donald". For this situation, using BibTeX, I would probably have two fields: author = "D[onald] E. Knuth", full-author = "Donald Ervin Knuth", (It's possible to serve all three purposes with just a single field, but the markup would probably be too cumbersome in this case---I realize that some people think that even using the bracket markup I've suggested above is too cumbersome.) JFM> As to those components, we need concepts that are as widely JFM> meaningful as possible _ to avoid "visual markup" _, and I have no JFM> precise idea what those might be... I heard that Patashnik is working JFM> hard on BibTeX 1.00; and he must have given serious thought to this JFM> question. Since in addition there may be obvious advantages in JFM> coordinating this question with BibTeX, one should probably ask his JFM> opinion. I go through stages where I work hard on 1.0, punctuated by periods where I'm forced to turn my attention elsewhere (:-( BV> Maybe BibTeX-like syntax will work, i.e. something like \author{Albert BV> Einstein} and \author{Einstein, Albert} would produce same output BV> determined *only* by house class? Then house classes could process BV> \author declarations and extract, if required, both Albert Einstein in BV> title page and A.~Einstein in the running head? BV> BV> Actually BibTeX has a very subtle algorithm of dealing with author names; BV> I think it is possible to reimplement it in TeX for journal styles. I'm not sure how hard it would be to do BibTeX's name-handling in TeX, but it seems to me that, if it's done, it should be done exactly (or almost exactly) the same---I think it might cause too much confusion if it were a half-way job, because then people would start confusing the two syntaxes. SR> While I (sort of) admire BibTeX's system for second-guessing surnames, SR> I have always found it confusing as an author, and as a processor of SR> other peoples .bib files. I think a clean separation into surname and SR> other bits is better. I guess the question I have is, is it confusing because BibTeX's parsing scheme is inherently confusing, or because it's insufficiently documented? I'm guessing it's more of the latter, although I suppose I'm not the one to ask (it's not confusing to me at all :-). SR> That does not mean you cannot give a simple case like SR> SR> \author{name=Sebastian Rahtz} SR> SR> and have it parsed easily by TeX as if you had typed SR> SR> \author{surname=Rahtz, forenames=Sebastian Patrick Quintus} [1] SR> SR> but it goes further than that, doesn't it. some styles will need to SR> suppress that to S.P.Q., others want the full name. you cannot always SR> work out that initial compression easily, by the way - people called SR> Christian sometimes like to be be abbreviated Chr. Two comments here. First, you might want the initials as S.P.Q., or maybe as S.~P.~Q., or maybe as S.\,P.\,Q., so you need some flexibility here. Also, BibTeX's special-character mechanism lets you, if you want, abbreviate Christian as Chr. or Charles as Ch. or whatever. BV> Actually BibTeX has a very subtle algorithm of dealing with author names; BV> I think it is possible to reimplement it in TeX for journal styles. SR> While I (sort of) admire BibTeX's system for second-guessing surnames, SR> I have always found it confusing as an author, and as a processor of SR> other peoples .bib files. [...] RF> I wholeheartedly agree with Sebastian. In addition, I feel that the RF> BibTeX algorithm is seriously slanted towards European languages (more RF> precisely, languages whose impact was felt in the USA prints at the RF> time BibTeX was being designed). Yes, BibTeX's name handling is definitely biased toward the names encountered in U.S. academia, 1983. But the goals were to have a system that was both flexible and, for the "common" names, easy to use. Thus you could type author = "Sebastian Patrick Quintus Rahtz", and BibTeX would figure out what you meant. And in the somewhat rarer case where you wanted Quintus to be part of the surname, you could type author = "Quintus Rahtz, Sebastian Patrick", which is only a little more difficult, and BibTeX would again know what you meant. And while it's true that, for Asian names, for example, typing author = "Mao, Tse-tung", (which is what the current BibTeX requires) is a little less natural than typing author = "Mao Tse-tung", (without the comma), still, it's not very hard. So although there is indeed a bias, it's not much of a hardship---it's certainly easier than having to use, for example, author-surname = "Mao", author-firstnames = "Tse-tung", RF> I suspect it's inadequate to `world-wide publishing' -- is Oren RF> listening to this list? -- or can someone else comment on whether the RF> eagerly-awaited BibTeX v1.0 is going to extend the algorithm anywhere? I assuming you mean that BibTeX's name-handling is inadequate for `world-wide publishing'. Perhaps you could give examples; but it seems to me that even the current scheme is adequate. (I make a distinction between the adequacy of the scheme itself and the adequacy of available styles, which is a separate issue.) In the current scheme, there are four name parts, with three allowed input syntaxes: first von last von last, first von last, jr, first The two main name-handling changes on the slate for BibTeX 1.0 are: (1) The addition of another syntax, probably last, von, jr, first, so that users may unambiguously mark the von/last boundary, in difficult cases, without too many contortions. (2) The use of another field, call it `attributes' for now, that lets a user specify certain attributes of a name. For example if a name has an `Asian' attribute, then a style might use Asian ordering for that name, for example with author = "Donald E. Knuth and Mao, Tse-tung", the style could produce Donald E. Knuth and Mao Tse-tung instead of Donald E. Knuth and Tse-tung Mao which is what, e.g., plain.bst would produce. (Of course currently a style may use Asian ordering; what the `attribute' field buys in this case is the ability to produce Asian-style ordering in the middle of an otherwise Western-ordering style.) In any case, I'm open to other enhancements for which there is a demonstrated need. In particular, if any language/country has names that must be broken into five or more parts to be handled correctly (that is, if BibTeX's four name-parts are insufficient), I'd love to hear about them. --Oren Patashnik (opbibtex@cs.stanford.edu) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Nelson H. F. Beebe Tel: +1 801 581 5254 - - Center for Scientific Computing FAX: +1 801 581 4148 - - University of Utah Internet e-mail: beebe@math.utah.edu - - Department of Mathematics, 105 JWB beebe@acm.org - - 155 S 1400 E RM 233 beebe@ieee.org - - Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0090, USA URL: http://www.math.utah.edu/~beebe - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27-Oct-1997 13:22:56-GMT,2145;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA03866 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 06:22:54 -0700 (MST) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA25066; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 13:47:49 +0100 (MET) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 224041 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 13:47:46 +0100 Received: from insanus.matematik.su.se (root@insanus.matematik.su.se [130.237.198.12]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA25054 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 13:47:42 +0100 (MET) Received: from [130.237.37.50] (sl56.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.76]) by insanus.matematik.su.se (8.8.7/8.6.9) with ESMTP id NAA21475 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 13:47:43 +0100 (MET) X-Address: Department of Mathematics, Stockholm University S-106 91 Stockholm SWEDEN X-Phone: int+46 8 162000 X-Fax: int+46 8 6126717 X-Url: http://www.matematik.su.se X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 13:48:04 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: LATEX-2E list To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Should the LATEX-2E list not be trashed, being replaced by LaTeX-l? -- I was offered subscription renewal by the list server. Hans Aberg * Email: Hans Aberg * AMS member listing: 27-Oct-1997 20:01:28-GMT,4459;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA13512 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 13:01:26 -0700 (MST) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA21785; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 20:42:12 +0100 (MET) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 224492 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 20:42:09 +0100 Received: from multivac (multivac.jb.man.ac.uk [130.88.24.128]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA21778 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 20:42:07 +0100 (MET) X-VMS-To: LATEX X-VMS-Cc: HELBIG Message-ID: <97102719061911@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 19:06:19 GMT Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Phillip Helbig Subject: journal macros (not front matter) To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Discussion has died down a bit on the topic of standard journal macros. Hopefully we're all doing our homework:) Discussion has concentrated on front matter, but let's not forget other things which require an author to CHANGE HIS INPUT according to which journal is to be used, even if the content is the same. These are at least spelling, whether to italicise foreign words, use of punctuation in abbreviations and the placement of \caption in figures and tables. All of these can be handled relatively easily (compared to front matter) I believe. There has also been little discussion of bibliography and citations, perhaps because so much work has already been done in this area. I'm not sure yet, but my impression is that Patrick Daly's natbib and merlin can probably handle this. Since the current versions are based on 2e, I have been hesitant about delving more deeply into them as long as I am forced to continue to think in 2.09. (Though there is some support for 2.09, I really want to start thinking LaTeX is LaTeX (meaning 2e) and not worry about things I shouldn't be using (just like Fortran is Fortran (meaning Fortran95:)).) Although I guess there is no reason to REQUIRE a journal to support bibliographies generated by BibTeX, it seems a sensible thing to do, since in practice hand-coded \bibitems will not be perfect. Of course, it is more convenient for the author to use some automatic reference list generator, and BibTeX seems up to the job. In order for the text itself not to be journal dependent, some sort of extended citing scheme, covering all the possibilities, should be at least allowed if not required. BibTeX seems to cover enough ground, and the formats, fields and so on are already broad enough to be flexible enough to cover about everything. Ideally, a journal should distribute it's own .bst file to format references the way they are required, but SHOULD DEFINITELY NOT cause the author to change any coding, which will not be necessary if a flexible enough \cite-like command is chosen. This list seems to be the best (only) way to finally get some changes made in this area so people can get back to thinking about content and not presentation:| What are the ideas about the time scales for goals? The final goal being able to write to all journals and say `here are the commands, write a 2e .cls, .bst etc to format them as you wish', but before that we must agree on what information is needed, how it is to be grouped, what the syntax should be and develop a sample (or real) .cls, .bst etc which shows that the scheme can actually fulfill its purpose. Has anyone thought about a scheme similar to BibTeX for front matter? -- Phillip Helbig Email ... helbig@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories Tel. ..... +44 1477 571 321 (ext. 297) Jodrell Bank Fax ................. +44 1477 571 618 Macclesfield Telex ................. 36149 JODREL G UK-Cheshire SK11 9DL Web .... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pjh/ 27-Oct-1997 22:02:42-GMT,2834;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA16568 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 15:02:40 -0700 (MST) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA25623; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 22:36:08 +0100 (MET) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 224535 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 22:36:04 +0100 Received: from math.uci.edu (root@math.uci.edu [128.200.174.70]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA25611 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 22:35:58 +0100 (MET) Received: from rasha.math.uci.edu by math.uci.edu (8.8.5) id NAA02104; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 13:35:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from rasha.math.uci.edu by rasha.math.uci.edu (8.8.5) id VAA08049; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 21:35:46 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (X11; I; IRIX 6.2 IP22) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <97102719061911@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <34550903.41C6@math.uci.edu> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 13:34:59 -0800 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Marcel Oliver Subject: Re: journal macros (not front matter) To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Phillip Helbig wrote: > Discussion has concentrated on front matter, but let's not forget other > things which require an author to CHANGE HIS INPUT according to which > journal is to be used, even if the content is the same. These are at > least spelling, whether to italicise foreign words, use of punctuation > in abbreviations and the placement of \caption in figures and tables. I don't think spelling, abbreviations etc. should be handled by the document class. The reasons are simple: It will almost surely create a large amount of infrequently used macros that the average author will not want to remember (or look up every time), assuming he/she is aware of their existence at all. Moreover, it is easy to accidentally not use the macro, so that the publisher will still be required to do careful proofreading. So while frontmatter/bibliography standarization is very desirable and necassary, I don't see any reason to promote the proliferation of a large number of trivial macros which increase the author's and don't decrease the publisher's workload. Marcel 27-Oct-1997 22:05:10-GMT,2599;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA16665 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 15:05:09 -0700 (MST) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA25833; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 22:45:50 +0100 (MET) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 224540 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 22:45:48 +0100 Received: from math.uci.edu (root@math.uci.edu [128.200.174.70]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA25826 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 22:45:45 +0100 (MET) Received: from rasha.math.uci.edu by math.uci.edu (8.8.5) id NAA02341; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 13:45:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from rasha.math.uci.edu by rasha.math.uci.edu (8.8.5) id VAA08073; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 21:45:37 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (X11; I; IRIX 6.2 IP22) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <97102719061911@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <34550B80.167E@math.uci.edu> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 13:45:36 -0800 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Marcel Oliver Subject: Re: journal macros (not front matter) To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Phillip Helbig wrote: > Although I guess there is no reason to REQUIRE a journal to support > bibliographies generated by BibTeX, it seems a sensible thing to do, > since in practice hand-coded \bibitems will not be perfect. Of course, Requiring BibTeX? At least in Mathematics where the speed of publication and the pool of potential references for a given topic are relatively low, BibTeX can be quite an obstruction. Especially in the case of several authors collaborating via e-mail, and each author being involved in several disjoint collaborations, I don't know how to efficiently use bibtex other than having a separate bibliography database for each paper (which directly contradicts the goal of bibtex...) Writing a bibliography is trivial compared to every other aspect in writing a paper, so let's leave it that way. Marcel 28-Oct-1997 8:02:38-GMT,4972;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA29443 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 01:02:37 -0700 (MST) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA08570; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 08:41:02 +0100 (MET) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 224825 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 08:40:59 +0100 Received: from linpwd (linpwd.mpae.gwdg.de [134.76.28.202]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA08563 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 08:40:57 +0100 (MET) X-VMS-To: SMTP%"LATEX-L@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de" X-VMS-Cc: DALY Message-ID: <97102808405186@linpwd.mpae.gwdg.de> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 08:40:51 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: "P.W.Daly, MPAe, Lindau, Germany" Subject: Re: journal macros (not front matter) To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Phillip has raised the point of non-front matter issues of the standard journal class. To this I would like to comment as follows: 1. BibTeX: yes, there should be an officially approved bst file for each journal. BibTeX does not have to be obligatory, but it should certainly be available. With my makebst (aka custom-bib, merlin, genbst) generating such files is greatly simplified. Marcel's comment that making the bibliography by hand is trivial compared to the rest of the article makes me laugh and cry together. The bibliography (by hand) is far from trivial, if you want it right, and it is an enormous effort for really arbitrary, fiddly, piddly stuff. I would rather make up a bib file for a one-shot paper than manually make up a thebibliography listing. 2. Most journal style files (few issue classes) do include extra features for handling tables, figure captions, references, sublabelling equations. Much of this can be handled by existing packages, such as my natbib. It would therefore be better to recommend the standard packages that one should be able to use, such as the tools collection and amsmath. That is, a paper using the model journal class could include all these packages without having to submit them separately to the journal; he can assume they will be at any installation that contains journal.cls. 3. Abbreviations and spelling should not be accommodated in any such packages. The author can provide this himself. I did this in my Guide to LaTeX (and I even explain how I did it that book) and the publisher really did demand US spelling after saying British spelling would be okay at first. (Actually in the book I describe how one could do it; what I really did was \newif\USspell \USspelltrue \newcommand{\USUK}[2]{\ifUSspell #1 \else #2\fi} Now you can refer to \USUK{color}{colour} as you please, and just change the state of the \USspell flag to switch. You can even define \newcommand{\colour}{\USUK{color}{colour}} to simplify typing. (Note that \color is probably already taken.) 4. The journals I have written classes for want a manuscript first with the figure captions and tables all at the end, not included within the text. This is anarchistic today. However, I have a package figcaps that allows this. Either the figures appear as normal in the text, or the captions (and optionally the figures themselves) and tables are written to separate files to be reread at the end. I have not made this package public, but parts of it are available inside my class files. I use this as an example of some very complex things that some journals require. My suggestion for journal.cls would be to FORGET IT. A draft or manuscript option should be available (for single column, double spacing) but such juggling of figures and tables should be left out. Let the figures and tables appear in the manuscript text too. It is only out of historical reasons that these are to be listed at the end, from the bad old typewriter days. Those are my comments for now. Patrick ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Patrick W. Daly Tel. [+49] 5556-979-279 Max-Planck-Institut fuer Aeronomie Fax. [+49] 5556-979-240 Max-Planck-Str. 2 D-37191 Katlenburg-Lindau Internet: daly@linmpi.mpg.de Germany ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28-Oct-1997 10:29:37-GMT,2659;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA02198 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 03:29:33 -0700 (MST) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA18444; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 11:07:44 +0100 (MET) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 224878 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 11:07:42 +0100 Received: from pillar.elsevier.co.uk (root@pillar.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.222.35]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA18354 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 11:06:51 +0100 (MET) Received: from snowdon.elsevier.co.uk (snowdon.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.197.164]) by pillar.elsevier.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA25511 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 10:05:28 GMT Received: from SRAHTZ (actually host srahtz.elsevier.co.uk) by snowdon.elsevier.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Tue, 28 Oct 1997 10:06:02 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <97102808405186@linpwd.mpae.gwdg.de> X-Mailer: VM 6.33 under Emacs 19.34.6 Message-ID: <4705-Tue28Oct1997100354+0000-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 10:03:54 +0000 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Sebastian Rahtz Subject: Re: journal macros (not front matter) To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <97102808405186@linpwd.mpae.gwdg.de> > my natbib. It would therefore be better to recommend the standard > packages that one should be able to use, such as the tools collection > and amsmath. That is, a paper using the model journal class could > include all these packages without having to submit them separately > to the journal; he can assume they will be at any installation that > contains journal.cls. i strongly support the thinking behind this. an awful lot of problems can be solved simply by conventions, like `everyone should have the contents of CTAN:macros/latex/packages installed'. then its a question of which packages to move into that area sebastian 28-Oct-1997 10:31:18-GMT,4413;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA02221 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 03:31:13 -0700 (MST) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA18363; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 11:06:54 +0100 (MET) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 224873 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 11:06:49 +0100 Received: from pillar.elsevier.co.uk (root@pillar.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.222.35]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA18329 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 11:06:42 +0100 (MET) Received: from snowdon.elsevier.co.uk (snowdon.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.197.164]) by pillar.elsevier.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA25507 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 10:05:26 GMT Received: from SRAHTZ (actually host srahtz.elsevier.co.uk) by snowdon.elsevier.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Tue, 28 Oct 1997 10:05:57 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <97102719061911@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> X-Mailer: VM 6.33 under Emacs 19.34.6 Message-ID: <446-Tue28Oct1997100042+0000-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 10:00:42 +0000 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Sebastian Rahtz Subject: Re: journal macros (not front matter) To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <97102719061911@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> > Although I guess there is no reason to REQUIRE a journal to support > bibliographies generated by BibTeX, it seems a sensible thing to do, i don't quite understand this. how can a style know whether a bibliography was formatted by BibTeX or by hand? do you mean one or all of: - journals must supply a .bst file on demand - journals should strongly recommend that authors use \cite - authors should supply only a .bib file > itself not to be journal dependent, some sort of extended citing scheme, > covering all the possibilities, should be at least allowed if not > required. BibTeX seems to cover enough ground, and the formats, fields i think you are confusing two issues here. layout of the contents of the \bibitem (by BibTeX) is one thing, the interaction between \*cite* and the label of the \bibitem is another. i dont think the internal formattng is much of an issue (unless someone proposes structured markup inside a \bibitem), and i would suggest that standardizing on the extended \cite markup of `natbib' would suit almost everyone. I have had to do styles and editorial support for quite a few journals here, and since i started telling people to use natbib, i have not had any more complaints of `but i cant express this bizarre citation situation'. really, anyone who has a scheme they cannot express should tell Patrick, and ask him to support it. > This list seems to be the best (only) way to finally get some changes > made in this area so people can get back to thinking about content and so far as bibliographies is concerned, do you mean that you want core LaTeX to define extended \cite commands? well, we know that won't happen for LaTeX2e, so our only recourse is a standardized package. i personally would like to see the problem solved by moving natbib into the macros/latex/packages area of CTAN, so as to give it the `preferred supplier' status. > before that we must agree on what information is needed, how it is to be > grouped, what the syntax should be and develop a sample (or real) .cls, > .bst etc which shows that the scheme can actually fulfill its purpose. i'd suggest doing one bit at a time. get front matter right first, and produce a sample package that implements it. if you try and do the whole job in one go, it'll fall to pieces. > Has anyone thought about a scheme similar to BibTeX for front matter? Michael Downes did, yes sebastian 28-Oct-1997 12:46:41-GMT,4712;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA04484 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 05:46:36 -0700 (MST) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA28567; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 13:08:16 +0100 (MET) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 224940 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 13:08:12 +0100 Received: from multivac (multivac.jb.man.ac.uk [130.88.24.128]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA28545 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 13:08:05 +0100 (MET) X-VMS-To: LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE X-VMS-Cc: HELBIG Message-ID: <97102812102132@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 12:10:21 GMT Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Phillip Helbig Subject: journal macros (repost since I haven't seen my message nor any response) To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Tuesday, 28-OCT-1997 12:11:03.56 From: HELBIG "Phillip Helbig" 27-OCT-1997 19:45:05.36 To: LATEX CC: HELBIG Subj: journal macros (not front matter) Discussion has died down a bit on the topic of standard journal macros. Hopefully we're all doing our homework:) Discussion has concentrated on front matter, but let's not forget other things which require an author to CHANGE HIS INPUT according to which journal is to be used, even if the content is the same. These are at least spelling, whether to italicise foreign words, use of punctuation in abbreviations and the placement of \caption in figures and tables. All of these can be handled relatively easily (compared to front matter) I believe. There has also been little discussion of bibliography and citations, perhaps because so much work has already been done in this area. I'm not sure yet, but my impression is that Patrick Daly's natbib and merlin can probably handle this. Since the current versions are based on 2e, I have been hesitant about delving more deeply into them as long as I am forced to continue to think in 2.09. (Though there is some support for 2.09, I really want to start thinking LaTeX is LaTeX (meaning 2e) and not worry about things I shouldn't be using (just like Fortran is Fortran (meaning Fortran95:)).) Although I guess there is no reason to REQUIRE a journal to support bibliographies generated by BibTeX, it seems a sensible thing to do, since in practice hand-coded \bibitems will not be perfect. Of course, it is more convenient for the author to use some automatic reference list generator, and BibTeX seems up to the job. In order for the text itself not to be journal dependent, some sort of extended citing scheme, covering all the possibilities, should be at least allowed if not required. BibTeX seems to cover enough ground, and the formats, fields and so on are already broad enough to be flexible enough to cover about everything. Ideally, a journal should distribute it's own .bst file to format references the way they are required, but SHOULD DEFINITELY NOT cause the author to change any coding, which will not be necessary if a flexible enough \cite-like command is chosen. This list seems to be the best (only) way to finally get some changes made in this area so people can get back to thinking about content and not presentation:| What are the ideas about the time scales for goals? The final goal being able to write to all journals and say `here are the commands, write a 2e .cls, .bst etc to format them as you wish', but before that we must agree on what information is needed, how it is to be grouped, what the syntax should be and develop a sample (or real) .cls, .bst etc which shows that the scheme can actually fulfill its purpose. Has anyone thought about a scheme similar to BibTeX for front matter? -- Phillip Helbig Email ... helbig@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories Tel. ..... +44 1477 571 321 (ext. 297) Jodrell Bank Fax ................. +44 1477 571 618 Macclesfield Telex ................. 36149 JODREL G UK-Cheshire SK11 9DL Web .... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pjh/ 28-Oct-1997 12:54:03-GMT,1221;000000000001 Received: from vms.rhbnc.ac.uk (alpha1.rhbnc.ac.uk [134.219.201.113]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id FAA04530 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 05:48:31 -0700 (MST) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 12:30:04 GMT From: "Philip Taylor (RHBNC) " Reply-To: Qhaa006@vms.rhbnc.ac.uk To: 4TeX@nic.surfnet.nl, CSTeX@cs.felk.cvut.cz, CyrTeX-t2@vvv.vsu.ru, Ellhnika@urz.uni-heidelberg.de, Emtex-User@physik.tu-berlin.de, Gust-L@Man.Torun.Pl, Gut@Ens.Fr, Info-TeX@shsu.edu, Italic-L@irlearn.ucd.ie CC: QHAA006@vms.rhbnc.ac.uk X-Vmsmail-To: @TEX-LISTS X-Vmsmail-Cc: QHAA006 Message-Id: <971028123004.2b8df@vms.rhbnc.ac.uk> Subject: EuroTeX'98: last Call for Papers Final Call for Papers: the 1998 EuroTeX Conference at St Malo, France. Dear Colleague -- apologies if you receive multiple copies of this message, but time is short and we must circulate as many TeX lists as possible before the Call for Papers closes. Please see http://www.ens.fr/gut/manif/eurotex98/ for the official announcement of EuroTeX'98; the Call for Papers closes on Monday 3rd November 1997. Philip Taylor, for the EuroTeX'98 Programme Committee. 28-Oct-1997 13:44:10-GMT,2746;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA05550 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 06:43:54 -0700 (MST) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA06134; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 14:11:35 +0100 (MET) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 225000 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 14:11:29 +0100 Received: from multivac (multivac.jb.man.ac.uk [130.88.24.128]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA06109 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 14:11:22 +0100 (MET) X-VMS-To: LATEX X-VMS-Cc: HELBIG Message-ID: <97102813091750@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 13:09:17 GMT Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Phillip Helbig Subject: test---ignore To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L This is a test. I have not been receiving my own messages recently, although I should: MAIL You are sent individual postings as they are received FULLHDR Full (normal) mail headers (formerly "FULLBSMTP") REPRO You receive a copy of your own postings ACK Short e-mail acknowledgement of successfully processed postings Also, the last email I received at all was from 22 October (my own last being from October 20). I do get the acknowledgement (which I turned on yesterday after noticing the problem). If anyone sees this, please send email to helbig@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk. For reasons unrelated to the list, most of my email now has Reply-To: helbig@man.ac.uk althouth From: helbig@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk should still be in there somewhere. This hasn't caused problems elsewhere, and I don't see how it could cause problems with the list, but it is the only thing which has changed at my end. Other email seems to work fine. -- Phillip Helbig Email ... helbig@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories Tel. ..... +44 1477 571 321 (ext. 297) Jodrell Bank Fax ................. +44 1477 571 618 Macclesfield Telex ................. 36149 JODREL G UK-Cheshire SK11 9DL Web .... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pjh/ 28-Oct-1997 14:36:11-GMT,1966;000000000001 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA06592 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 07:36:10 -0700 (MST) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA11879; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 15:16:13 +0100 (MET) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 225066 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 15:16:10 +0100 Received: from humulus.daimi.aau.dk (humulus.daimi.aau.dk [130.225.16.6]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA11866 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 15:16:07 +0100 (MET) Received: (from sandmann@localhost) by humulus.daimi.aau.dk (8.8.2/8.8.2) id PAA06191 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 15:16:09 +0100 (MET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL22 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <199710281416.PAA06191@humulus.daimi.aau.dk> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 15:16:09 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Soren Sandmann Pedersen Subject: Re: test---ignore To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <97102813091750@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> from Phillip Helbig at "Oct 28, 97 01:09:17 pm" > For reasons unrelated to the list, most of my email now has Done -- Soeren Sandmann (sandmann@brics.dk) 29-Oct-1997 15:09:11-GMT,2527;000000000000 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA06437 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 08:09:03 -0700 (MST) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA18723; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 15:37:09 +0100 (MET) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 225118 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 15:37:03 +0100 Received: from multivac (multivac.jb.man.ac.uk [130.88.24.128]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA18693 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 15:36:56 +0100 (MET) X-VMS-To: LATEX X-VMS-Cc: HELBIG Message-ID: <97102914360764@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 14:36:07 GMT Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Phillip Helbig Subject: help me I'm desperate!!! To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L No, not spam from an XXX online site, but just me wanting to get back to receiving the mailings from the LaTeX list. Apparently the list gets my messages, and other commands to the mail server work (and I get email responses) but I don't get the mailings. Attempts to contact the owner of the list have failed (no response). Could someone tell me how to contact someone so that we can resolve this by email? My email works normally otherwise. Please distribute this cry for help to anyone who might be able to, and everyone should feel free to contact me via email. I do want desperately to get back on, but don't want to clutter the list with my cries for help. Surely someone knows the owner and can get him/her to send me an email? Cheers, Phillip -- Phillip Helbig Email ... helbig@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories Tel. ..... +44 1477 571 321 (ext. 297) Jodrell Bank Fax ................. +44 1477 571 618 Macclesfield Telex ................. 36149 JODREL G UK-Cheshire SK11 9DL Web .... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pjh/ 30-Oct-1997 6:31:54-GMT,1542;000000000000 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA26592 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 23:31:52 -0700 (MST) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id HAA21353; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 07:14:23 +0100 (MET) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 225446 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 07:14:22 +0100 Received: from nessie.mcc.ac.uk (pp@nessie.mcc.ac.uk [130.88.200.20]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA21345 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 07:14:20 +0100 (MET) Received: from jb.man.ac.uk (actually jbss0.jb.man.ac.uk) by nessie.mcc.ac.uk with SMTP (PP); Thu, 30 Oct 1997 06:14:12 +0000 X-Sender: pjh@ceres Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 06:14:37 +0000 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Phillip Helbig Subject: test To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L test 30-Oct-1997 6:34:08-GMT,1752;000000000000 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA26638 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 23:34:06 -0700 (MST) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id HAA21258; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 07:08:30 +0100 (MET) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 225439 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 07:08:28 +0100 Received: from nessie.mcc.ac.uk (pp@nessie.mcc.ac.uk [130.88.200.20]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA21251 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 07:08:26 +0100 (MET) Received: from jb.man.ac.uk (actually jbss0.jb.man.ac.uk) by nessie.mcc.ac.uk with SMTP (PP); Thu, 30 Oct 1997 06:08:25 +0000 X-Sender: pjh@ceres Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 06:08:48 +0000 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Phillip Helbig Subject: test from a different email address To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Since I've heard nothing which can fix my problem, I've subscribed from a different email address, which was successfully confirmed. Let's see if I get this message. Phillip Helbig 30-Oct-1997 7:32:13-GMT,4628;000000000000 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA27924 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 00:32:11 -0700 (MST) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id HAA22011; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 07:54:31 +0100 (MET) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 225460 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 07:54:26 +0100 Received: from multivac (multivac.jb.man.ac.uk [130.88.24.128]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id HAA22002 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 07:54:20 +0100 (MET) X-VMS-To: LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE X-VMS-Cc: HELBIG Message-ID: <97103006494624@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 06:49:46 GMT Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Phillip Helbig Subject: help me get back on the list To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Thursday, 30-OCT-1997 06:57:17.92 Sorry again for the non-LaTeX content, folks. As you can see below, I have successfully subscribed from another email address and should definitely get copies of my own postings. I don't get any postings. After receiving the message below, I sent another test message to the list, which was acknowledged, but I have not received the message itself. WHAT IS GOING ON? There might be others with the same problem, but of course they won't get this message either. I've tried contacting people at the list---all the standard addresses---and have received no response. Until this is sorted out, would some kind soul please forward me all postings to the LaTeX-L list (and those since last Friday, if you still have them). Send them to helbig@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk All my email, including sending commands to the listserv address, apparently functions completely normally. Again, if anyone can drop a line to the people who run the list, please do!!!! Thanks, Phillip -- Phillip Helbig Email ... helbig@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories Tel. ..... +44 1477 571 321 (ext. 297) Jodrell Bank Fax ................. +44 1477 571 618 Macclesfield Telex ................. 36149 JODREL G UK-Cheshire SK11 9DL Web .... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pjh/ =============================================================================== From: SMTP%"listserv@urz.uni-heidelberg.de" 30-OCT-1997 06:15:48.62 To: Phillip Helbig CC: Subj: Output of your job "pjh" > set latex-l ack repro Your subscription options have been successfully updated. Here are the exact settings now in use for your subscription. Please take a few moments to check that this is indeed what you wanted. Subscription options for Phillip Helbig , list LATEX-L: MAIL You are sent individual postings as they are received FULLHDR Full (normal) mail headers (formerly "FULLBSMTP") REPRO You receive a copy of your own postings ACK Short e-mail acknowledgement of successfully processed postings Summary of resource utilization ------------------------------- CPU time: 0.030 sec Overhead CPU: 0.040 sec CPU model: SPARCstation-20 (128M) ================== RFC 822 Headers ================== Return-Path: listserv@urz.uni-heidelberg.de Received: by multivac.jb.man.ac.uk (UCX V4.1-12, OpenVMS V7.1 Alpha); Thu, 30 Oct 1997 06:15:46 GMT Received: from jb.man.ac.uk (actually jbss0.jb.man.ac.uk) by nessie.mcc.ac.uk with SMTP (PP); Thu, 30 Oct 1997 06:12:39 +0000 Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id HAA21315 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 07:12:31 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199710300612.HAA21315@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 07:12:31 +0100 From: "L-Soft list server at University of Heidelberg (1.8b)" Subject: Output of your job "pjh" To: Phillip Helbig 30-Oct-1997 7:48:52-GMT,1405;000000000000 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA28218 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 00:48:51 -0700 (MST) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA22533; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 08:14:56 +0100 (MET) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 225477 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 08:14:53 +0100 Received: from multivac (multivac.jb.man.ac.uk [130.88.24.128]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA22520 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 08:14:51 +0100 (MET) X-VMS-To: LATEX X-VMS-Cc: HELBIG Message-ID: <97103007174184@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 07:17:41 GMT Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Phillip Helbig Subject: test from a third email address To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L test from a third email address 30-Oct-1997 11:35:54-GMT,1702;000000000000 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA01920 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 04:35:50 -0700 (MST) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA06025; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 11:51:22 +0100 (MET) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 225589 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 11:51:20 +0100 Received: from perdita.zdv.Uni-Mainz.de (perdita.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.8.147]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA06015 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 11:51:18 +0100 (MET) Received: (from schoepf@localhost) by perdita.zdv.Uni-Mainz.de (8.8.4/8.8.5) id LAA23862; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 11:51:19 +0100 (MET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: VM 6.31 under Emacs 19.34.1 Message-ID: <199710301051.LAA23862@perdita.zdv.Uni-Mainz.de> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 11:51:19 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Rainer Schoepf Organization: Johannes Gutenberg-Universitaet Mainz Subject: testing the list To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L testing the list server, please ignore 30-Oct-1997 23:35:32-GMT,4677;000000000000 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA18082 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 16:35:30 -0700 (MST) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id AAA19544; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 00:16:16 +0100 (MET) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 226026 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 00:16:13 +0100 Received: from math.ams.org (math.ams.org [130.44.210.14]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id AAA19379; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 00:11:46 +0100 (MET) Received: from axp14.ams.org by math.ams.org via smtpd (for relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) with SMTP; 30 Oct 1997 23:11:44 UT Received: from epsilon.ams.org by AXP14.AMS.ORG (PMDF V5.1-8 #1) with SMTP id <01IPFDVO6T80000F87@AXP14.AMS.ORG>; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 18:10:54 EST Received: by epsilon.ams.org; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/12Oct95-1155AM) id AA27530; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 18:10:51 -0500 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Lines: 67 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 18:10:51 -0500 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Michael John Downes Subject: Announce: alpha release of breqn package To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L This to announce that an alpha release of the `breqn' package, which was the subject of a talk I gave at the 1997 TUG conference in San Francisco, is now available from e-math.ams.org. (Although it is not being submitted to CTAN at this time because it is only an alpha release, the fact that it is available may be of interest to the CTAN-ANN list subscribers.) >From the READ.ME file: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ READ.ME for breqn.sty [Michael Downes, 1997/10/30] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The alpha release of the `breqn' package for LaTeX is available from the American Mathematical Society: ftp://e-math.ams.org/pub/tex/breqn.tar.gz The following files comprise the alpha release of the package: breqn.sty READ.ME breqn.txt flexisym.sty breqndoc.tex flexisym.txt ltxbase.sym breqn.bug The files in the first column are what you need to use the package. The files in the middle column are documentation: The READ.ME is this file. The file breqn.bug is a list of known deficiencies that need fixing in the alpha release. The file breqndoc.tex explains the usage of the LaTeX commands and environments provided by the breqn package. The files in the last column are source code and technical commentary; these are likely to make dull reading except for TeXnicians. (They would normally be in .dtx format but I was experimenting with an alternative format whose macros are, as luck would have it, in a nonfunctional transitional stage just now; the .txt files are an ASCII version generated from the real sources.) Some of the principal features of the breqn package are: ---Displayed equations are broken automatically to the available width, without explicit line break commands. ---Line breaks within paired \left-\right delimiters work in a natural way (splitting with null delimiters and awkward size adjustments are unnecessary). You can specify a delimiter nesting depth beyond which automatic line breaks must not occur. ---Punctuation at the end of a displayed equation can be written in its logical place and will be assimilated into the display as necessary. ---Applying a background color or a frame to an equation is easily done. For information on additional features consult the user's guide, breqndoc.tex. The amsmath package and the breqn package can be used together, but then the amsmath package should be loaded first. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PLEASE BEAR IN MIND: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This is an alpha release of the software; there are many gaps and shortcomings in what is implemented and what is not. However, it is working well enough that we think potential users will welcome the chance at this time to try it out and to offer feedback. 31-Oct-1997 7:41:32-GMT,3416;000000000000 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA27570 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 00:41:31 -0700 (MST) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA29874; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 08:17:21 +0100 (MET) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 226257 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 08:17:19 +0100 Received: from multivac (multivac.jb.man.ac.uk [130.88.24.128]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA29865 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 08:17:17 +0100 (MET) X-VMS-To: SMTP%"LATEX-L@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de" X-VMS-Cc: HELBIG Message-ID: <97103107120947@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 07:12:09 GMT Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Phillip Helbig Subject: Re: journal macros (not front matter) To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L > Phillip Helbig wrote: > > Although I guess there is no reason to REQUIRE a journal to support > > bibliographies generated by BibTeX, it seems a sensible thing to do, > > since in practice hand-coded \bibitems will not be perfect. Of course, > > Requiring BibTeX? Read it again---I said require a journal to SUPPORT bibliographies generated by BibTeX, not require the USE of BibTeX. > At least in Mathematics where the speed > of publication and the pool of potential references for a given > topic are relatively low, BibTeX can be quite an obstruction. If you would rather do it by hand, go ahead. However, with custom-bib it is literally less work to generate a .bst file from scratch and type the references into a .bib file than to code it by hand. Really. It's that user friendly. And if the speed of publication is slow, you're guarded against the journal style changing on you. > Especially in the case of several authors collaborating > via e-mail, and each author being involved in several disjoint > collaborations, I don't know how to efficiently use bibtex > other than having a separate bibliography database for each paper > (which directly contradicts the goal of bibtex...) This is a more important point. Since I'm catching up on old posts, I'll wait and see if anyone has contributed any answer to this first. > Writing a bibliography is trivial compared to every other aspect > in writing a paper, so let's leave it that way. I disagree. If the basis of the paper is a conference contribution, or a thesis etc then the bibliography can actually be the most work:( -- Phillip Helbig Email ... helbig@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories Tel. ..... +44 1477 571 321 (ext. 297) Jodrell Bank Fax ................. +44 1477 571 618 Macclesfield Telex ................. 36149 JODREL G UK-Cheshire SK11 9DL Web .... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pjh/ 31-Oct-1997 7:51:14-GMT,4487;000000000000 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA27718 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 00:51:13 -0700 (MST) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA29676; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 08:09:15 +0100 (MET) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 226246 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 08:09:10 +0100 Received: from multivac (multivac.jb.man.ac.uk [130.88.24.128]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA29665 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 08:09:02 +0100 (MET) X-VMS-To: SMTP%"LATEX-L@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de" X-VMS-Cc: HELBIG Message-ID: <97103107021305@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 07:02:13 GMT Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Phillip Helbig Subject: Re: journal macros (not front matter) To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L [I'm sure you've all heard about my problems with the latex list. I've received several old messages during the night, so perhaps the problem has been solved. Those kind souls who have forwarded things to me: please continue to do so for a couple of days until I'm sure I'm getting everything. Thanks. Now back to the regular discussion.] > Phillip Helbig wrote: > > least spelling, whether to italicise foreign words, use of punctuation > > in abbreviations and the placement of \caption in figures and tables. > > I don't think spelling, abbreviations etc. should be handled by the > document class. The reasons are simple: It will almost surely create > a large amount of infrequently used macros that the average author > will not want to remember (or look up every time), assuming he/she is > aware of their existence at all. Moreover, it is easy to accidentally > not use the macro, so that the publisher will still be required > to do careful proofreading. I agree that it is not near as big a problem of front matter (not yet solved) and citations and references (natbib and custom-bib can do the job). The advantage of doing this, however, is that there would be a STANDARD set of macros to do it. If this does not exist, many people will roll their own, and run into problems when these conflict with other macros etc. If one for some reason does NOT want to use them, fine, this is no problem. An author is always free to explicitly code things like \textit{et al.} rather then using something like \etal\ if he wants to. If he resubmits to another journal, or recycles part of the text for something else, he is free to get rid of the italics by hand if the style requires it, whereas I would prefer just redefining a command (or have the .cls do it for me.) Proofreading will always be necessary, since with ANY macros some authors will do something wrong. > So while frontmatter/bibliography standarization is very desirable > and necassary, I don't see any reason to promote the proliferation > of a large number of trivial macros Again, you're free not to use them if you don't think the effort is worth it. > which increase the author's If you don't want them, don't take them---no burden to you, but a burden for me if they don't exist (as I have to roll my own, always making sure they don't conflict with anything else etc). > and don't decrease the publisher's workload. Again, proofreading is necessary in either case. By using the macros, the general quality would probably improve, so that fewer corrections would be necessary. Whether or not this is formally a part of a .cls or an additional package doesn't really matter. -- Phillip Helbig Email ... helbig@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories Tel. ..... +44 1477 571 321 (ext. 297) Jodrell Bank Fax ................. +44 1477 571 618 Macclesfield Telex ................. 36149 JODREL G UK-Cheshire SK11 9DL Web .... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pjh/ 31-Oct-1997 8:28:36-GMT,5292;000000000000 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA28313 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 01:28:34 -0700 (MST) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA01188; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 08:53:12 +0100 (MET) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 226282 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 08:53:07 +0100 Received: from multivac (multivac.jb.man.ac.uk [130.88.24.128]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA01168 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 08:53:04 +0100 (MET) X-VMS-To: SMTP%"LATEX-L@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de" X-VMS-Cc: HELBIG Message-ID: <97103107442164@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 07:44:21 GMT Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Phillip Helbig Subject: Re: journal macros (not front matter) To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L > 1. BibTeX: yes, there should be an officially approved bst file for each > journal. BibTeX does not have to be obligatory, but it should > certainly be available. With my makebst (aka custom-bib, merlin, > genbst) generating such files is greatly simplified. My thoughts exactly. Distribute the .bst with the .cls. Also, one should be able to use the \cite-like commands of natbib, rather than being REQUIRED to use some other scheme. Depending on how the files are processed, one might can get away with this even if it is not officially sanctioned. Definitely one should explicitly allow natbib. Also good would be for the .bst files to conform to the native natbib style. > 2. Most journal style files (few issue classes) do include extra features > for handling tables, figure captions, references, sublabelling > equations. Much of this can be handled by existing packages, such as > my natbib. Hmmm...how does natbib come into this? Sometimes the caption should come before the table, sometimes after---one has to code presentation, not content. It's things like this I was thinking of. How can natbib (in its present form) do this? > It would therefore be better to recommend the standard > packages that one should be able to use, such as the tools collection > and amsmath. That is, a paper using the model journal class could > include all these packages without having to submit them separately > to the journal; he can assume they will be at any installation that > contains journal.cls. Definitely. Some `core subset' of LaTeX!?! > 3. Abbreviations and spelling should not be accommodated in any such > packages. The author can provide this himself. If they are available (as part of a .cls or in some other way) one official source a) keeps people from reinventing the wheel and b) avoids conflicts between an authors own macros and those used by a journal. (The more of my own macros I have to write, the more potential for conflict with names somewhere else, in the .cls or wherever. This can be avoided by stuff like \helbigetal instead of \etal but makes for too much typing and too little readability. > 4. The journals I have written classes for want a manuscript first with > the figure captions and tables all at the end, not included within the > text. This is anarchistic today. However, I have a package figcaps > that allows this. Either the figures appear as normal in the text, or > the captions (and optionally the figures themselves) and tables are > written to separate files to be reread at the end. I have not made > this package public, but parts of it are available inside my class > files. > > I use this as an example of some very complex things that some > journals require. My suggestion for journal.cls would be to FORGET IT. > A draft or manuscript option should be available (for single column, > double spacing) but such juggling of figures and tables should be left > out. Let the figures and tables appear in the manuscript text too. It > is only out of historical reasons that these are to be listed at the > end, from the bad old typewriter days. A very important point. My thoughts exactly. The goal should not be merely to standardise coding for existing practice but, since most journals will have to rewrite their stuff for 2e anyway, make sure that excess baggage which is no longer justified is done away with. -- Phillip Helbig Email ... helbig@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories Tel. ..... +44 1477 571 321 (ext. 297) Jodrell Bank Fax ................. +44 1477 571 618 Macclesfield Telex ................. 36149 JODREL G UK-Cheshire SK11 9DL Web .... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pjh/ 31-Oct-1997 8:42:48-GMT,6686;000000000000 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA28497 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 01:42:46 -0700 (MST) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA02518; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 09:15:49 +0100 (MET) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 226322 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 09:15:46 +0100 Received: from multivac (multivac.jb.man.ac.uk [130.88.24.128]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA02502 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 09:15:42 +0100 (MET) X-VMS-To: SMTP%"LATEX-L@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de" X-VMS-Cc: HELBIG Message-ID: <97103107592302@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 07:59:23 GMT Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Phillip Helbig Subject: Re: journal macros (not front matter) To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L > > Although I guess there is no reason to REQUIRE a journal to support > > bibliographies generated by BibTeX, it seems a sensible thing to do, > i don't quite understand this. how can a style know whether a > bibliography was formatted by BibTeX or by hand? What I meant was not requirement for support of bibliographies generated by BibTeX which conform to some bad scheme favoured by the journal, but support for doing things as they should be done, coding content and not presentation. BibTeX is the most sensible way to do this. A standard .bst would encourage this. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON NOT TO REQUIRE THE NATIVE NATBIB FORMAT TO BE USED HERE, and thus this should be done. That is, if someone wants to explicitly code the bibliography and use the standard cite commands, then that's fine (though I would not recommend it) but, if one goes beyond this, then efforts should concentrate on natbib for citing and the native natbib format for the list of references, preferable via a .bst file generated with BibTeX. That is, I don't want a journal to REQUIRE me or even SUGGEST TO me to use stuff like \shortcite in the text and \bibitem[\protect\citename{Jones et al., }1990]{jon90} which, as Daly points out in the natbib documentation, `is not a good system'. You can sometimes tell if a bibliography has been formatted by hand, since mistakes, if they exist, tend to be inconsistent, while BibTeX, if set up correctly, will get everything right with no effort. Now to the following points. > do you mean one or > all of: > - journals must supply a .bst file on demand A very good idea (assuming natbib can read it, as the USE of natbib should be explicitly ALLOWED). > - journals should strongly recommend that authors use \cite Yes. > - authors should supply only a .bib file Supplying a .bib file is a bad idea; either one has a separate one for each paper, conflicting with the goal of BibTeX, or one sends in a lot if irrelevant (and potentially embarrassing:) information to the publisher. > > itself not to be journal dependent, some sort of extended citing scheme, > > covering all the possibilities, should be at least allowed if not > > required. BibTeX seems to cover enough ground, and the formats, fields > i think you are confusing two issues here. layout of the contents of > the \bibitem (by BibTeX) is one thing, the interaction between \*cite* > and the label of the \bibitem is another. i dont think the internal > formattng is much of an issue (unless someone proposes structured > markup inside a \bibitem), and i would suggest that standardizing on > the extended \cite markup of `natbib' would suit almost everyone. They are two issues, but related. Standardising on the extended \cite markup of natbib is perhaps more important (since it can read \bibitems genereated with a variety of .bst files (or hand-coded correspondingly). Distributing standard .bst files with the .cls would make sure that the reference list corresponds more closely to what the journal intends, and the sooner everyone realises that natbib's native format is the best and most flexible, the better. It wouldn't be a good idea to require natbib to support all kinds of bizarre \bibitem formats indefinitely. > I have had to do styles and editorial support for quite a few journals > here, and since i started telling people to use natbib, i have not had > any more complaints of `but i cant express this bizarre citation > situation'. really, anyone who has a scheme they cannot express should > tell Patrick, and ask him to support it. As far as citing goes, yes, but the reference lists should, as soon as possible, use the native natbib format and not the other, inferior stuff. > so far as bibliographies is concerned, do you mean that you want core > LaTeX to define extended \cite commands? well, we know that won't > happen for LaTeX2e, so our only recourse is a standardized package. i > personally would like to see the problem solved by moving natbib into > the macros/latex/packages area of CTAN, so as to give it the > `preferred supplier' status. My thoughts exactly. > > before that we must agree on what information is needed, how it is to be > > grouped, what the syntax should be and develop a sample (or real) .cls, > > .bst etc which shows that the scheme can actually fulfill its purpose. > i'd suggest doing one bit at a time. get front matter right first, and > produce a sample package that implements it. if you try and do the > whole job in one go, it'll fall to pieces. I am now convinced that citations and references have already been solved by natbib and custom-bib. The other non-front matter stuff is relatively simple, though there really should be standard macros for stuff which is often in different styles, such as \textit{et al.}. OK, shift the emphasis back to front matter. -- Phillip Helbig Email ... helbig@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories Tel. ..... +44 1477 571 321 (ext. 297) Jodrell Bank Fax ................. +44 1477 571 618 Macclesfield Telex ................. 36149 JODREL G UK-Cheshire SK11 9DL Web .... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pjh/ 31-Oct-1997 11:37:46-GMT,2509;000000000000 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA01572 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 04:37:44 -0700 (MST) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA11321; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 11:39:47 +0100 (MET) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 226440 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 11:39:42 +0100 Received: from heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk (exim@heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.32.11]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA11304 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 11:39:36 +0100 (MET) Received: from dorceus.cl.cam.ac.uk (cl.cam.ac.uk) [128.232.1.34] (rf) by heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.735 #1) id 0xREUN-0003Gs-00; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 10:39:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 10:39:37 +0000 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Robin Fairbairns Subject: Re: test---.ac.uk people should *not* ignore To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 28 Oct 1997 13:09:17 GMT." <97102813091750@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Phillip (and other .ac.uk readers of this list) -- Please *don't* be surprised if your message doesn't immediately return to you. Mail from .ac.uk *whizzes* to Heidelberg, but since Heidelberg's a listserv, it then gets sucked into the (largely broken) listserv network. This introduces a delay of approx. 24 hours at present -- sometimes it's worse still. Short of moving the list to somewhere not managed by a listserv, there's nothing we can do about this problem. I don't even know if the problem is the listserv network between Heidelberg and the routing centre in Finland, the router in Finland, the network between there and the Rutherford, or the NT machine at the Rutherford that gateways to Janet. I know at one stage the Rutherford machine was not man enough for its job, but it's been upgraded since. Robin 31-Oct-1997 11:55:42-GMT,2867;000000000000 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA01834 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 04:55:40 -0700 (MST) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA14056; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 12:23:32 +0100 (MET) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 226463 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 12:23:29 +0100 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA14040 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 12:23:21 +0100 (MET) Received: from [130.237.37.65] (sl64.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.84]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA17936; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 12:23:15 +0100 (MET) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se References: Your message of "Tue, 28 Oct 1997 13:09:17 GMT." <97102813091750@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 12:23:47 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: Re: test---.ac.uk people should *not* ignore To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: At 10:39 +0000 97/10/31, Robin Fairbairns wrote: >Please *don't* be surprised if your message doesn't immediately return >to you. ... >Short of moving the list to somewhere not managed by a listserv, >there's nothing we can do about this problem. I don't even know if >the problem is the listserv network between Heidelberg and the routing >centre in Finland, the router in Finland, the network between there >and the Rutherford, or the NT machine at the Rutherford that gateways >to Janet. I know at one stage the Rutherford machine was not man >enough for its job, but it's been upgraded since. I know that someone claimed (four years ago) they had slow ftp lines in and out of Finland, so if that is overloaded at times, the network may get slow. I have no idea if that is what is causing the problem though. Also, sometimes ftp Sweden->UK seems slow, too. I think the Swedish network is fast, though. Hans Aberg * Email: Hans Aberg * AMS member listing: 31-Oct-1997 12:40:37-GMT,2057;000000000000 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA02567 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 05:40:31 -0700 (MST) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA16633; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 13:01:43 +0100 (MET) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 226496 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 13:01:39 +0100 Received: from vms.rhbnc.ac.uk (alpha1.rhbnc.ac.uk [134.219.201.113]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA16603 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 13:01:37 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <971031120139.3890d@vms.rhbnc.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 12:01:39 GMT Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: "Philip Taylor (RHBNC)" Subject: Re: journal macros (not front matter) To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L >> Discussion has concentrated on front matter, but let's not forget other >> things which require an author to CHANGE HIS INPUT according to which >> journal is to be used, even if the content is the same. These are at >> least spelling, agreed. >> whether to italicise foreign words, patently untrue: every author in his/her right mind tags such words/phrases \foreign {...} (or even \french {...}, \czech {...}, ...) and then establishes a suitable definition for the tags to meet the criteria of the publication in which it will appear. >> use of punctuation >> in abbreviations again I would disagree: surely one uses \etc, \eg, \ie, etc. with appropriate definitions? Philip Taylor, RHBNC. 31-Oct-1997 12:42:57-GMT,3831;000000000000 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA02611 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 05:42:55 -0700 (MST) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA17709; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 13:12:35 +0100 (MET) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 226514 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 13:12:33 +0100 Received: from multivac (multivac.jb.man.ac.uk [130.88.24.128]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA17702 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 13:12:30 +0100 (MET) X-VMS-To: SMTP%"LATEX-L@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de" X-VMS-Cc: HELBIG Message-ID: <97103112060101@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 12:06:01 GMT Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Phillip Helbig Subject: Re: journal macros (not front matter) To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L > >> Discussion has concentrated on front matter, but let's not forget other > >> things which require an author to CHANGE HIS INPUT according to which > >> journal is to be used, even if the content is the same. These are at > >> least spelling, > > agreed. > > >> whether to italicise foreign words, > > patently untrue: every author in his/her right mind tags such > words/phrases \foreign {...} (or even \french {...}, \czech {...}, ...) > and then establishes a suitable definition for the tags to meet the > criteria of the publication in which it will appear. Sure every author can tag such things...but this applies equally well to spelling, italicisation and... > >> use of punctuation > >> in abbreviations > > again I would disagree: surely one uses \etc, \eg, \ie, etc. with appropriate > definitions? ...these examples as well. Indeed, every author could implement his own front matter markup. The whole idea is to invent the wheel once. The question is, where to draw the line. The agreement seems to be that front matter is the most important thing---citations and references can be handled with BibTeX, natbib and custom-bib, and the other stuff is relatively trivial. But why not, as icing on the cake, so to speak, include in a model .cls commands such as \etc, \colour etc. One is free to use only a (possibly empty) subset---no problem. But if one does want to use some or all, they are there. The advantages I see is that the .cls could be required to recognise these---possibly interpreting some things (like italicisation) differently in different areas of the text---and also that one wouldn't have to worry about some .cls defining \colour to mean something completely different as, for example, a macro to be interpreted as `color' or `colour' as required. Since the difficulty of including things like this is small, people who don't want the stuff can just ignore it with no problem, but it is helpful to people who would implement in themselves anyway, why NOT include it? -- Phillip Helbig Email ... helbig@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories Tel. ..... +44 1477 571 321 (ext. 297) Jodrell Bank Fax ................. +44 1477 571 618 Macclesfield Telex ................. 36149 JODREL G UK-Cheshire SK11 9DL Web .... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pjh/ 31-Oct-1997 14:11:31-GMT,2451;000000000000 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA04067 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 07:11:30 -0700 (MST) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA24257; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 14:40:38 +0100 (MET) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 226564 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 14:40:33 +0100 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA24245 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 14:40:27 +0100 (MET) Received: from [130.237.37.65] (sl62.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.82]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA29131 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 14:40:28 +0100 (MET) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 14:41:17 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: Re: journal macros (not front matter) To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <97103112060101@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Phillip Helbig : >...But why not, as icing on the cake, so to speak, >include in a model .cls commands such as \etc, \colour etc. Should the command not be named \color? I mean, who will remember how to spell it correctly otherwise. -- Just joking. :-) But I am not sure of the use of the command. Are there a lot of authors writing papers in several English dialects simultaneously? Or are there a lot of scientific journals out there that refuse to accept the fact that there are different dialects of the English language? Hans Aberg * Email: Hans Aberg * AMS member listing: 31-Oct-1997 14:22:07-GMT,3566;000000000000 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA04252 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 07:22:06 -0700 (MST) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA25062; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 14:51:33 +0100 (MET) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 226600 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 14:51:31 +0100 Received: from multivac (multivac.jb.man.ac.uk [130.88.24.128]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA25054 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 14:51:29 +0100 (MET) X-VMS-To: SMTP%"LATEX-L@relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de" X-VMS-Cc: HELBIG Message-ID: <97103113443170@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 13:44:31 GMT Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Phillip Helbig Subject: Re: journal macros (not front matter) To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L > Phillip Helbig : > Should the command not be named \color? I mean, who will remember how to > spell it correctly otherwise. -- Just joking. :-) \color might already exist in one of the graphics packages?!?! > But I am not sure of the use of the command. Are there a lot of authors > writing papers in several English dialects simultaneously? Well, my next paper I intend to submit to the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, who in their style guide say `please use British spelling'. Part of this might be recycled for, say, a conference proceeding (or the other way around) published by, say, an American publisher who is equally adamant about using American spelling. Or the decision where to submit something might be made after most of the manuscript is written, depending on how much each of the potential authors actually contributes, perhaps the emphasis in the final version, whose institute can cover page charges for those journals which levy them etc. Also, there are times when one doesn't agree with the reasons for a rejection and resubmits to another, equally respected, journal in another country. So it is a real concern. > Or are there a > lot of scientific journals out there that refuse to accept the fact that > there are different dialects of the English language? Depends on how strictly such things as `please use British spelling' are interpreted. Note that, with german.sty, one can select language as either Austrian or German---I believe the only difference is that with \today Austrian has `J"anner' and German `Januar'. Also, in Switzerland, they have abolished the "s (\ss,\3) character, so there are similar considerations in languages other than English. -- Phillip Helbig Email ... helbig@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories Tel. ..... +44 1477 571 321 (ext. 297) Jodrell Bank Fax ................. +44 1477 571 618 Macclesfield Telex ................. 36149 JODREL G UK-Cheshire SK11 9DL Web .... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pjh/ 31-Oct-1997 15:29:43-GMT,2729;000000000000 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA05671 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 08:29:41 -0700 (MST) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA29628; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 15:53:55 +0100 (MET) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 226643 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 15:53:48 +0100 Received: from pillar.elsevier.co.uk (root@pillar.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.222.35]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA29605 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 15:53:41 +0100 (MET) Received: from snowdon.elsevier.co.uk (snowdon.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.197.164]) by pillar.elsevier.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA10613 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 14:52:24 GMT Received: from SRAHTZ (actually host srahtz.elsevier.co.uk) by snowdon.elsevier.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Fri, 31 Oct 1997 14:52:05 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <97103113443170@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> X-Mailer: VM 6.33 under Emacs 19.34.6 Message-ID: <8674-Fri31Oct1997140902+0000-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 14:09:02 +0000 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Sebastian Rahtz Subject: Re: journal macros (not front matter) To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <97103113443170@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> > > Depends on how strictly such things as `please use British spelling' are > interpreted. > have you ever had a paper rejected on the grounds that you have said `colour' instead of `color' or vice-versa? who ever checks it? i see a lot of scientific papers here; the *spelling* is the very least of their problems - many authors need a course in basic literacy before getting round to spelling....... if this is 2 years work on a fundamental paper, or a text book, then maybe authors might get around to minutiae like color vs colour. i suggest that the rest of time you should just write in your own dialect, be consistent, and take the journal to court if they reject your apper on those grounds only.... Sebastian 31-Oct-1997 16:01:15-GMT,4866;000000000000 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA06391 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 09:01:13 -0700 (MST) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA00653; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 16:08:28 +0100 (MET) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 226653 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 16:08:25 +0100 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA00639 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 16:08:23 +0100 (MET) Received: from [130.237.37.65] (sl49.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.69]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA06514 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 16:08:19 +0100 (MET) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 16:08:30 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: Re: journal macros (not front matter) To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <97103113443170@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> >> Phillip Helbig : >>Are there a lot of authors >> writing papers in several English dialects simultaneously? > >Well, my next paper I intend to submit to the Monthly Notices of the >Royal Astronomical Society, who in their style guide say `please use >British spelling'. Part of this might be recycled for, say, a >conference proceeding (or the other way around) published by, say, an >American publisher who is equally adamant about using American spelling. This sounds like an ethics violating from the part of the involved scientific journals. The question should be brought up before the ethics committee of an international scientific association. In general, I think authors would be expected to write scientific papers in an acceptable scientific style of their choice; if the journal then wants to alter that style, they should engage its own personnel. If a paper is rejected on basis of style, it is an ethics violation of that journal, and that should be pointed out. Journals that do not follow this cannot be labelled scientific journals, just as those that do not demonstrate proper refereeing procedures. Clearly, the purpose of a scientific journal is not to present material in a particular style, but to present scientific results; the style is subordinate to that, only serving the purpose of aiding the communication of those scientific results. I understand well that this is not the reality of today: In fact, there is a strong tendency of forcing authors doing the work that typesetters should do. Physicists are inventing typesetting standards which are really not possible to write mathematics in, and so on. I do not think there is a case of a scientific journal that is labelled as non-scientific regardless of how much rules they break. But the reason it is going on like that is that nobody protests. I can give one example, in order to make this more explicit: In traditional math, it is common to label only important equations, and those that are referred to. This is a way to communicate information to the reader. However, I have noticed that some applied journals require equation numbers on pretty much all equations. This is not not to be considered a journal style really, but a request to the author to alter some of the semantic contents (as the information communicated to the reader is changed). In fact, I think the AMS packages had to implement special commands in order to accomodate this common mathematical style, because LaTeX does not permit it. Returning to LaTeX3, I think Frank Mittelbach said that the idea is to serve the user community. So this seems to imply that one should such special commands in order to serve the user commounity. But on the other hand, it can be hard to accommodate various whims by journals. For example US and UK English do not differ only in choice of spelling for different words, but also in choice of words and in some cases, the grammar, too. Hans Aberg * Email: Hans Aberg * AMS member listing: 31-Oct-1997 18:06:41-GMT,5761;000000000000 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA09466 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 11:06:40 -0700 (MST) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA08903; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 18:31:17 +0100 (MET) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 226715 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 18:31:11 +0100 Received: from multivac (multivac.jb.man.ac.uk [130.88.24.128]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA08881 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 18:31:05 +0100 (MET) X-VMS-To: LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE X-VMS-Cc: HELBIG Message-ID: <97103117174372@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 17:17:43 GMT Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Phillip Helbig Subject: journal macros and ethics To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L > >Well, my next paper I intend to submit to the Monthly Notices of the > >Royal Astronomical Society, who in their style guide say `please use > >British spelling'. Part of this might be recycled for, say, a > >conference proceeding (or the other way around) published by, say, an > >American publisher who is equally adamant about using American spelling. > > This sounds like an ethics violating from the part of the involved > scientific journals. The question should be brought up before the ethics > committee of an international scientific association. Well, as Woody Allen said, I hate reality, but it's the only place where I can get a decent steak. Reality means work must be published, and a journal has a right to present all articles with a uniform look and feel. I wouldn't want all journals to have the same style, since I'm sure I wouldn't like it; if there are different styles, there is more possibility for improvement (ideally converging on the ideal style for all journals). Properly managed---and that's the reason I started this thread in the first place---the presentation can be done by the .cls of the journal in question and the author just writes the content. I would rather conform exactly to the journal's specifications---preferably by just reading in a different .cls and nothing more---since if they have reason to change things of style, there is a danger that unwittingly mistakes will be made which change the content. It can certainly be practical to make the manuscript as `acceptable' as possible:) > In general, I think authors would be expected to write scientific papers > in an acceptable scientific style of their choice; if the journal then > wants to alter that style, they should engage its own personnel. Either one would have a hodge-podge of different styles or the journals would be too expensive. I think that the disadvantages of NOT conforming to journal specifications FAR outweigh the advantages TO THE AUTHOR. Consider a highly technical paper with perhaps lots of equations. Unless the typesetter UNDERSTANDS the material, changing the style might make it more difficult to understand. I don't want a typesetter mucking my stuff about; neither do I want to typeset it myself---that's why I use LaTeX. > If a paper > is rejected on basis of style, it is an ethics violation of that journal, > and that should be pointed out. Journals that do not follow this cannot be > labelled scientific journals, just as those that do not demonstrate proper > refereeing procedures. Clearly, the purpose of a scientific journal is not > to present material in a particular style, but to present scientific > results; the style is subordinate to that, only serving the purpose of > aiding the communication of those scientific results. I agree about the subordination, but I don't think the solution is to submit something in a completely different format and let the journal worry about it. The journals can have their style AND not bother the authors if they implement are common journal macros when they've been done:) > changed). In fact, I think the AMS packages had to implement special > commands in order to accomodate this common mathematical style, because > LaTeX does not permit it. Use displaymath instead of equation to get a non-numbered one. > Returning to LaTeX3, I think Frank Mittelbach said that the idea is to > serve the user community. So this seems to imply that one should such > special commands in order to serve the user commounity. But on the other > hand, it can be hard to accommodate various whims by journals. For example > US and UK English do not differ only in choice of spelling for different > words, but also in choice of words and in some cases, the grammar, too. One can handle the spelling, but not the choice of words or grammar. The only real solution is to accept ANY standard dialect or to force everyone to use `real' English. Either is OK by me:) -- Phillip Helbig Email ... helbig@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories Tel. ..... +44 1477 571 321 (ext. 297) Jodrell Bank Fax ................. +44 1477 571 618 Macclesfield Telex ................. 36149 JODREL G UK-Cheshire SK11 9DL Web .... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pjh/ 31-Oct-1997 19:11:49-GMT,4964;000000000000 Received: from relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by csc-sun.math.utah.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA10916 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 12:11:48 -0700 (MST) Received: from relay (relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.201]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA11717; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 19:35:38 +0100 (MET) Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 226756 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 19:35:33 +0100 Received: from mail.nada.kth.se (root@mail.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.92]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA11705 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 19:35:26 +0100 (MET) Received: from [130.237.37.65] (sl09.modempool.kth.se [130.237.37.29]) by mail.nada.kth.se (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA20798 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 19:35:21 +0100 (MET) X-Sender: su95-hab@mail.nada.kth.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 19:34:44 +0100 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Hans Aberg Subject: Re: journal macros To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L In-Reply-To: <97103117174372@multivac.jb.man.ac.uk> I will try to bend this onto the LaTeX3 topic: Phillip Helbig : >Reality means work must be published, and a >journal has a right to present all articles with a uniform look and >feel. >> In general, I think authors would be expected to write scientific papers >> in an acceptable scientific style of their choice; if the journal then >> wants to alter that style, they should engage its own personnel. > >Either one would have a hodge-podge of different styles or the journals >would be too expensive. I was careful speaking about the authors scientific style, which should not be confused with the idea of a journal style. I think in the LaTeX3 project these two different entities must be kept apart as much as possible, and interface where they do intersect. This will maximize both authors personal styles and journal styles. >I think that the disadvantages of NOT conforming to journal >specifications FAR outweigh the advantages TO THE AUTHOR. Consider a >highly technical paper with perhaps lots of equations. Unless the >typesetter UNDERSTANDS the material, changing the style might make it >more difficult to understand. So the problem is not "Should there be journal styles that authors must conform to?", but "How do we make journal and author styles interface and exist independently of each other?". >I agree about the subordination, but I don't think the solution is to >submit something in a completely different format and let the journal >worry about it. We are not really discussing the idea of formats, since that probably is something that journals should override, but rather the tendency of journals (and editors and referees) interfering with things they should not. >.. The journals can have their style AND not bother the >authors if they implement are common journal macros when they've been >done:) > >> changed). In fact, I think the AMS packages had to implement special >> commands in order to accomodate this common mathematical style, because >> LaTeX does not permit it. > >Use displaymath instead of equation to get a non-numbered one. >One can handle the spelling, but not the choice of words or grammar. >The only real solution is to accept ANY standard dialect or to force >everyone to use `real' English. Either is OK by me:) In part the problem you have surprises me, because there are a lot of talented mathematicians with shaky English, and I generally try to understand their mathematics, rather than requiring that they use a particular English dialect before I try to understand their mathematics. I understand that is not so in many applied sciences, where the style is used as an argument for not accepting a paper. To me, it is like saying that the Wright brothers were not first with controlled flight because their style was not satisfactory. It is obvious this is not good for science. >Well, as Woody Allen said, I hate reality, but it's the only place where >I can get a decent steak. Well, Woody Allen ate a lot of steak without worrying about ethics, until it became indecent. :-) Hans Aberg * Email: Hans Aberg * AMS member listing: