Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.3DCB2284@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:41:46 +0100 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.3DCB2284" x-vm-v5-data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil t t nil][nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Front matter, back matter Date: Wed, 20 Feb 1991 23:45:40 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Sender: To: "Rainer M. Schoepf" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 292 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.3DCB2284 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable BACKGROUND Most users of TeX and LaTeX 2.09 are not committed TeXies: they just = want typesetting that looks as if it was produced by traditional means. If TeX/LaTeX are working in terms of structures/concepts/practices that are different from those adopted in mainstream publishing, authors (and = support staff) are going to be forever translating from LaTeX-speak to = publisher-speak. I appreciate that TeX and LaTeX 2.09 were produced in limited time, and = that if their authors had had to completely research = structures/concepts/practices before they started coding, they might never have had time to write any = code. But if, with the move to LaTeX 3.0, there are opportunities to phase out the old ways of doing things and to phase in new ways of doing things, I think that it is worth taking these opportunities to move LaTeX in the direction of traditional mainstream publishing. Then the communications problems between designers and computer-people will be reduced, and = authors will be able to get what designers intend fairly painlessly. Thus, I tend to think that, if some aspect of LaTeX 2.09 is out of line with traditional mainstream publishing practice, then it is LaTeX 2.09 that is in "the wild blue yonder". Admittedly, it's not always easy to identify what is fundamental in traditional mainstream publishing, but = its better TO TRY than to risk leaving LaTeX out on a limb. \CHAPTER* As far as I can see, there is no concept in traditional mainstream publishing practice that really corresponds to \chapter*. The relevant concepts seem to be "front matter" (or "preliminary pages", or "prelims") and "back matter" (or "end pages" or "back matter"). Within these divisions, there are top-level units (Preface, Acknowledgements, Glossary, References, Index), but they aren't really chapters. See, for example, "Chicago Manual of Style", Chicago University Press, 1982, pages 4-5; Judith Butcher, "Copy-editing", Cambridge University Press, 1981, chapters 7, 8, 9; Hugh Williamson, "Methods of Book Design", Yale University Press, 1983, chapter 8; Ruari McLean, "The Thames and Hudson Manual of Typography", Thames and Hudson, 1980, chapter 10; Jan V. White, "Graphic Design for the Electronic Age", Watson-Guptill, 1988, pages 156-161; John Miles, "Design for Desktop Publishing" Gordon Fraser, 1987, pages 58-61. This divergence between LaTeX 2.09 and traditional publishing practice seems to be what causes: Don's problems; Sebastian to have to countenance resetting tocdepth and secnumdepth "on the fly" (OK for Sebastian, but I think that it would just put ordinary users off); ordinary mortals to mess around with \pagenumbering{roman} and "\pagenumbering{arabic} right after the first \chapter command". Don wants to signal "prefatory sections" (i.e., what a publisher would call "front matter", "preliminary pages" or "prelims"). In his design, "front matter" has: TOC entry; modified headings; page numbering in roman; equations and figures unlikely. I presume that modifying the effect of \chapter* to meet Don's requirements would violate the decision that "LaTeX 3.0 should be able to process LaTeX 2.09 input files", so we'd be talking in terms of phasing something else in to meet his requirements. Sebastian's design happens to treat "front matter" differently from = Don's, but I think he still has a chunk of document that would be recognised as "front matter", etc. I agree with Sebastian that "a higher level construct" would be = appropriate. I'd suggest something like \begin{prelimpages} ... \end{prelimpages} \begin{maintext} ... \end{maintext} \begin{endpages} ... \end{endpages} [If you want a precedent, I think that MIT-press-book.sty envisages that the author will go \begin{frontmatter} ... \end{frontmatter}.] Then the user wouldn't have to bother about: the \chapter/\chapter* distinction; \pagenumbering; \addcontentsline. Such details should be taken care of by the designer, via the style file. The designer will be thinking in terms of "preliminary pages" and "end pages", the user will "tell" LaTeX (via the environments) which pages are "preliminary pages" and "end pages", the user will have to think in the terms in which his/her publisher is thinking but won't have to bother with how to coerce LaTeX to make the "preliminary pages" and "end pages" conform to the publisher's design. As a bonus, = "preliminary pages" could have a \countN set appropriately to help page selection, = e.g. \count2 =3D 1, 2, 3 might mean "preliminary pages", "main text", "end = pages". I sent Frank some more detailed suggestions in this area a few months = back. If anyone else wants a copy, I suggest that they let me know and I'll = mail them to people individually. David Rhead ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.3DCB2284 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Front matter, back matter

BACKGROUND

Most users of TeX and LaTeX 2.09 are not committed = TeXies: they just want
typesetting that looks as if it was produced by = traditional means.  If
TeX/LaTeX are working in terms of = structures/concepts/practices that are
different from those adopted in mainstream = publishing, authors (and support
staff) are going to be forever translating from = LaTeX-speak to publisher-speak.

I appreciate that TeX and LaTeX 2.09 were produced in = limited time, and that
if their authors had had to completely research = structures/concepts/practices
before they started coding, they might never have had = time to write any code.
But if, with the move to LaTeX 3.0, there are = opportunities to phase out
the old ways of doing things and to phase in new ways = of doing things,
I think that it is worth taking these opportunities = to move LaTeX in the
direction of traditional mainstream publishing.  = Then the communications
problems between designers and computer-people will = be reduced, and authors
will be able to get what designers intend fairly = painlessly.

Thus, I tend to think that, if some aspect of LaTeX = 2.09 is out of line
with traditional mainstream publishing practice, then = it is LaTeX 2.09
that is in "the wild blue yonder".  = Admittedly, it's not always easy to
identify what is fundamental in traditional = mainstream publishing, but its
better TO TRY than to risk leaving LaTeX out on a = limb.

\CHAPTER*

As far as I can see, there is no concept in = traditional mainstream
publishing practice that really corresponds to = \chapter*.

The relevant concepts seem to be "front = matter" (or "preliminary pages",
or "prelims") and "back matter" = (or "end pages" or "back matter").
Within these divisions, there are top-level units = (Preface,
Acknowledgements, Glossary, References, Index), but = they aren't
really chapters.  See, for example,
"Chicago Manual of Style", Chicago = University Press, 1982,
      pages 4-5;
Judith Butcher, "Copy-editing", Cambridge = University Press, 1981,
      chapters 7, 8, = 9;
Hugh Williamson, "Methods of Book Design", = Yale University Press,
      1983, chapter = 8;
Ruari McLean, "The Thames and Hudson Manual of = Typography",
      Thames and Hudson, = 1980, chapter 10;
Jan V. White, "Graphic Design for the Electronic = Age", Watson-Guptill,
      1988, pages = 156-161;
John Miles, "Design for Desktop Publishing" = Gordon Fraser, 1987,
      pages 58-61.

This divergence between LaTeX 2.09 and traditional = publishing practice
seems to be what causes: Don's problems; Sebastian to = have to
countenance resetting tocdepth and secnumdepth = "on the fly" (OK for
Sebastian, but I think that it would just put = ordinary users off);
ordinary mortals to mess around with = \pagenumbering{roman} and
"\pagenumbering{arabic} right after the first = \chapter command".

Don wants to signal "prefatory sections" = (i.e., what a publisher would
call "front matter", "preliminary = pages" or "prelims").  In his design,
"front matter" has:  TOC entry; = modified headings; page numbering
in roman; equations and figures unlikely.  I = presume that modifying the
effect of \chapter* to meet Don's requirements would = violate the
decision that "LaTeX 3.0 should be able to = process LaTeX 2.09 input
files", so we'd be talking in terms of phasing = something else in to
meet his requirements.

Sebastian's design happens to treat "front = matter" differently from Don's,
but I think he still has a chunk of document that = would be recognised
as "front matter", etc.

I agree with Sebastian that "a higher level = construct" would be appropriate.
I'd suggest something like \begin{prelimpages} ... = \end{prelimpages}
\begin{maintext} ... \end{maintext} \begin{endpages} = ... \end{endpages}
[If you want a precedent, I think that = MIT-press-book.sty envisages that
the author will go \begin{frontmatter} ... = \end{frontmatter}.]
Then the user wouldn't have to bother about: the = \chapter/\chapter*
distinction; \pagenumbering; \addcontentsline.  = Such details should
be taken care of by the designer, via the style = file.  The designer
will be thinking in terms of "preliminary = pages" and "end pages",
the user will "tell" LaTeX (via the = environments) which pages
are "preliminary pages" and "end = pages", the user will have to think
in the terms in which his/her publisher is thinking = but won't have
to bother with how to coerce LaTeX to make the = "preliminary pages"
and "end pages" conform to the publisher's = design.  As a bonus, "preliminary
pages" could have a \countN set appropriately to = help page selection, e.g.
\count2 =3D 1, 2, 3 might mean "preliminary = pages", "main text", "end pages".

I sent Frank some more detailed suggestions in this = area a few months back.
If anyone else wants a copy, I suggest that they let = me know and I'll mail
them to people individually.

          &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp; David Rhead


------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.3DCB2284--